''^ii 


ON  THEENCLITIC  7V£  IN  tMEY  LATIN 


A  DISSERTATION 


FOR   THE 


ACQUISITION  OF  THE  DEGREE 


OF 


DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


AT    THE 


KAISER-WILHELMS- UNIVERSITAT  STRASSBURG 


BY 


MINTON    WARREN 


OF    PROVIDENCE    U.    S.    A. 


BALTIMORE  &  STRASSBURG 
1881. 


•  * 


■  -»■■• 


/v,^^'    }/^i 


[From  the  American  Journal  of  Philology,  Vol.  2,  No.  5.] 

ON  THE   ENCLITIC   NE  IN   EARLY   LATIN. 
By  Minton  Warren. 

Within  the  last  twenty  years  much  attention  has  been  paid  to 
the  peculiarities  of  early  Latin.  Striking  deviations  from  the 
usage  of  the  classical  period  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  regimen 
of  verbs,  in  the  signification  and  use  of  certain  particles  and  con- 
junctions, and  in  the  principles  governing  the  subordination  of 
clauses.  A  multitude  of  monographs  have  contributed  valuable 
material  for  the  construction  of  an  historical  syntax.  Not  to  speak 
of  others,  Liibbert  has  traced  the  development  of  quom,  Kienitz 
of  quin,  and  Becker,  in  Studemund's  Studien  Bd.  I,  has  made  a 
most  exhaustive  study  of  the  Syntax  of  Indirect  Questions  in 
Early  Latin.  The  enclitic  ne,  commonly  known  as  the  Inter- 
rogative Particle,  has  not  to  my  knowledge  received  a  special 
treatment  in  recent  times.  It  occurs  about  i  loo  times  in  Plautus 
and  over  400  times  in  Terence.  Hence  a  discussion  of  its  use 
which  should  aim  in  any  sense  to  be  exhaustive  would  far  exceed 
the  limits  of  a  journal  article.  I  shall  therefore  in  the  following 
pages  content  myself  with  the  attempt  to  show  that  in  the  earliest 
Latin  the  use  of  this  particle  was  not  confined  to  questions.  I 
shall  then  seek  to  establish  a  probability  in  favor  of  the  existence 
of  two  particles  nc  distinct  in  origin  and  signification. 

I  proceed  at  once  to  treat  the  passages  where  ne  is  found  in  the 
MSS.  with  no  interrogative  force,  for  which  reason  the  text  has 
in  most  cases  suffered  violence  at  the  hands  of  the  editors. 

Mil.  309  (II  3,  38).  The  slave  Sceledrus,  on  discovering  that 
Philocomasium  has  eluded  his  vigilance,  gives  utterance  to  his 
agitation  and  alarm  in  the  following  words  : 

Edepol  facinus  fecit  audax.     Hocine  si  miles  sciat 

Credo  hercle  hasce  aedi's  sustollat  tolas  atque  me  in  crucem. 

Hocine  BD,  hoc  me  C     In  line  310  I  follow  Fleckeisen  and  Brix  ; 
see  Tyrrell's  ed.  for  MSS.  readings.     Parens  keeps  hocine  and 

'  Lorenz  says,  Philol.  32,  p.  302,  Auch  C  hat  hoc  ine  welches  Klotz  sogar 
vertheidigt.     Bergk  vermuthet  hdce  si  mMs  sciat. 


puts  an  exclamation  point  after  sciat.  Ritschl's  change  to  hoc 
nunc  is  adopted  by  Brix,  Lorenz,  Fleckeisen  and  Tyrrell.  Fleck- 
eisen  however  in  Jahrb.  105,  p.  71,  proposes  to  read  hoc  enim. 
Langen  treating  oi  enim,  in  Beitrage  zur  Kritik  und  Erklarung  des 
Plautus,  p.  270,  gives  hoc  nunc  the  preference.  Lest  the  position 
of  hercle,  which  usually  follows  si  immediately  (cf  Epid.  326), 
should  excite  suspicion,  I  call  attention  to  J'ersa,  627  f. 

Tu  si  banc  emeris 
Niimquatn  hercle  hunc  mensem  vortentem,  credo,  servibit  tibi. 

Epid.  73(1  I,  73): 

Haecine  ubi  scibit  senex 
Piippis  pereundast  probe. 

Hecine  B,  haeccine  J,  hec  F,  hecine  E  (cf.  Goetz'  ed.  of  Curculio 
p.  ix.)  Muller,  Plant.  Pros.  p.  732,  proposes  to  emend  by  reading 
haec  hercle  or  haec  hodie.  Goetz  is  wisely  conservative.  Although 
he  makes  no  explanation,  he  evidently  does  not  regard  haecine 
as  introducing  a  question.  Parens  puts  an  interrogation  point  after 
senex. 

Mil.  565  (II  6,  82)  : 

Orationemque  SC.  Egone  si  post  hiinc  diem 
Muttivero  etiam  quod  egomet  certo  sciam 
Dato  excruciandum  me :   egomet  me  dedam  tibi. 

Although  the  Ambrosianus  with  BCD  has  egone,  the  editors  with 
one   accord   substitute  ego  nunc.     So  too  Tyrrell,  without   even 
mentioning  in  his  critical  apparatus  the  reading  of  the  MSS. 
And.  478  (III  I,  20): 

Hicine  me  si  inparatum  in  veris  nuptiis 
Adortus  esset,  quos  mihi  ludos  redderet  ? 

Hiccine  BCD'G'P  (^Hicine  D^E,  Hie  G  ex  ras.)  Some  of  the 
codices  of  Donatus  give  Hie  si  me  im.paratum,  but  the  best  codex, 
the  Parisinus,  gives  Hie  m,e  m,isi  in  parta,  evidently  a  corruption 
of  hicine  me  si  inparatum.  Consequently  any  change  here  is 
direcdy  in  the  face  of  the  best  MS.  authority.  Bothe  however 
3oes  not  scruple  to  transpose  me,  and  reads  Hie  iyiparatum  me  si. 
Fleckeisen,  Klotz,  Meissner,  and  Umpfenbach  follow  him.  Wagner 
reads  hie  nunc  me.  Conradt,  Metrische  Composition  der  Como- 
dien  des  Terenz,  p.  117,  reads  Hie  ne,  "da  die  Fragepartikel 
durchaus  fortgeschafft  werden  muss."  Spengel  nevertheless  in  his 
edition  makes  bold  to  retain  hicine,  citing  for  its  support  Mil.  309 


V' 


and  565.     His  theory  of  explanation,  however,   involving  as   it 
does  an  anacoluthon,  I  cannot  in  view  of  all  the  facts  accept.     It 
does  not  fit  all  the  other  cases. 
Mil.  936  (III  3,  62)  : 

Bene  ambula,  bene  rem  gere.     At  egone  hoc  si  ecficiam  plane 
Ut  concubinam  militis  meus  hospes  habeat  hodie 
Atque  hinc  Athenas  avehat  si  hodie  hiinc  dolum  dolamus 
Quid  tibi  ego  mittam  muneris? 

Egone  B,  egonec  CD.  Here  metrical  considerations  forbid  the 
mere  substitution  of  nunc  for  ne  and  the  editors  have  been  pushed 
to  other  devices.  Muller,  Nachtrage  zur  Plaut.  Pros.  p.  82, 
proposes  ego  hoc  nunc  si.  Ritschl  too  by  transposition  inserts 
his  favorite  nunc  so  as  to  read  At  ego  nunc  si  ecficiam  hoc  plane. 
So  too  Fleckeisen  and  Lorenz.  Seyffert  (Philol.  xxix,  p.  399) 
finds  nunc  here  "  huchst  matt  und  iiberfliissig,"  and  looks  upon  ne 
or  nee  as  a  mere  dittograph  of  hoc.  Brix  approves  of  this  view 
and  would  have  us  read  (with  hiatus)  at  ego  hoc  si  ecficiam  plane , 
which  is  simply  a  return  to  Bothe's  reading  (in  my  copy  of  1821). 
I  wish  to  make  it  apparent  how  much  trouble  the  editors  have  taken 
to  get  rid  of  a  simple  ne,  which,  if  a  rational  explanation  can  be 
found  for  it,  must  after  all  be  retained.  I  know  of  no  better 
parallel  for  this  particular  passage  than  is  furnished  by  Poen.  I  3, 
18  (420  Geppert).  To  appreciate  tlie  scene,  one  must  picture  to 
himself  the  youth  Agorastocles  quite  overjoyed  at  the  prospect  of 
outwitting  a  pimp  and  getting  possession  of  the  lovely  Adelphasium. 
Milphio,  his  slave  and  willing  agent  in  the  matter,  has  been  too 
often  wheedled  by  fair  promises  to  put  faith  in  them  any  longer, 
and  hence,  when  his  master  begins  a  long-winded  sentence  promis- 
ing him  his  freedom,  he  interrupts  him  at  every  turn,  and  bids  him 
go  bring  the  witnesses. 

AG.  Egone  edepol,  si  istuc  lepide  ecfexis.     MI.  I  modo 
AG.  Ut  non  ego  te  hodie.     MI.  Abi  modo.     AG.  Emittam  manu 
MI.  I  modo.     AG.  Non  hercle  merear  pro  hoc.     MI.  Abi,  abi  modo 
AG.  Quantum  Acherunti  est  mortuorum.     MI.  Etiamne  abis  ? 
AG.  Neque  quantum  aquai  in  mari  est.     MI.  Abiturunes? 

The  enigmatical  character  of  the  whole  speech,  which  is  too  long 
to  quote  entire,  is  shown  by  the  words  of  Milphio  as  he  goes  off 
in  a  rage,  muttering : 

Nam  isti  quidem  hercle  orationi  est  Oedipo 
Opus  coniectore. 


It  has  puzzled  the  editors  as  well.  I  have  given  the  text  of  Geppert 
except  that  I  have  omitted  the  interrogation  point  after  manu.  The 
only  emendation  which  specially  concerns  us  here  is  that  of  egone 
egoyie  found  in  ABCD  to  egone  edepol.  This  may  have  been 
suggested  to  Geppert  by  Men.  1023  (1025  Bx), 

Ergo  edepol,  si  recte  facias,  ere,  me[d]emittas  manu. 

Bothe  omits  one  egone  and  makes  no  attempt  to  heal  the  halting 
verse.  Egone  is  most  likely  a  dittograph,  and  edepol  is  on  the  whole 
a  probable  substitution.  If  accepted,  however,  it  precludes  the 
idea-of  a  question,  since  it  is  not  employed  either  by  Plautus  or 
Terence  in  interrogative  sentences.  Bothe  in  fact  does  not  seem 
to  regard  egone  as  introducing  a  question,  but  indicates  by  leaders 
placed  after  manu  that  Agorastocles'  speech  is  broken  off.  Parens 
reads  egone  ?  egone  !  si,  etc.,  but  his  commentary  shows  that  he 
caught  the  true  sense  of  the  passage.  He  interprets  thus,  "  ego 
profecto  te  manumittam  si  istuc  feceris,"  and  again,  "  non  hercle 
velim  pro  mercede  mortuos  omnes  consequi,  etc.,  ut  non  te  mittam 
manu  si  .  .  .  effeceris."  An  exactly  parallel  use  of  ui  non  occurs 
in  Bacch.  11 84", 

Quern  quidem  ego  ut  non  [hodie]  excruciem,  altenim  tantum  non  meream. 

Hodie  was  added  by  Hermann.  The  MSS.  have  alterum 
ianium  auri,  which  Fleckeisen  and  Ussing  keep,  the  latter 
without  inserting  hodie''  (cf.  also  Stich.  24,  Men.  218.)  Both 
in  Mil.  936  and  Poen.  420,  egone  must  be  retained,  but  not 
as  part  of  an  interrogation.  Agorastocles'  words  taken  con- 
nectedly give  then  the  following  sense  or  nonsense :  "  I  in  good 
sooth,  so  you  play  cleverly  your  part,  would  not  forego  the  giving 
you  this  day  your  freedom,  to  earn  as  many  as  are  the  dead  in 
Acheron,  nor  yet  as  many  as  are  the  waters  in  the  sea,  nor  as  all 
clouds  that  are,  nor  as  the  stars  in  heaven,"  etc. 

The  next  example  which  I  shall  cite  is  very  similar.  Asin.  884 
(V2,34): 

PA.  Aiidin  quid  ait?  ART.  Audio.  DE.    Egone  ut  non  domo  uxori  meae 
Siibrupiam  in  deHciis  pallam  quam  habet  atque  ad  te  deferam 
Non  edepol  condiici  possum  vita  uxoris  annua. 

Fleckeisen   and   most   editors    put    an   interrogation   point  after 

'  In  Bursian's  lahresbericht  for  1881,  Heft  3,  p.  39,  I  find  that  Brachmann 
follows  Fleckeisen,  but  reads  altrum.  Perhaps  we  should  read,  Quern  quidem 
egone  ut  non  e'xcruciem,  altrum  tdntutn  auri  non  meream,  cf.  Haut.  950,  Syrum 
quidem  egone,  €te.7-see  below 


deferam.  The  usual  conditions  under  which  the  egone  ut  ques- 
tions are  employed  by  Plautus  are  not  here  fulfilled,  as  is  clearly 
admitted  by  Kraz  (Stuttgart  Program,  1862,  p.  33),  Ussing  cites 
the  parallel  passage  Cas.  400*^*^-  (11  8,  68)  : 

Tribus  non  conduci  possum  libertatibus 

Quin  ego  illis  hodie  comparem  magnum  malum, 

and  reads  Ego  ne,  but  the  ne  is  certainly  enclitic.  It  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  no  more  interrogative  force  felt  in  ut  iion  than  in 
^uin,  although  I  admit  that  in  an  earlier  period  the  construction 
itself  may  have  grown  out  of  a  paratactic  question,  as  has  been 
proved  for  quin  clauses. 

In  Haut.  950  (V  i,  77)  the  Codex  Bembinus  reads : 

Sed  Syrum  quidem  egone  si  vivp  adeo  exornatiim  dabo 
Adeo  depexum,  ut  dum  vivat  meminerit  semper  mei. 

The  MSS.  of  the  Calliopian  recension  BCDEHGP  have,  accord- 
ing to  Umpfenbach,  Sed  Syrum  MEN  Q^iid  eum  ?  CHR  Egone  ? 
si  vivo,  except  that  G  has  ergo  me.  From  personal  examination, 
however,  I  can  state  that  Cod.  Par.  7899,  Umpfenbach's  P,  has  no 
interrogation  point  after  egone,  although  it  is  commonly  found  in 
P  after  questions.  Cod.  Par.  7900  A  saec.  X  on  the  other  hand 
reads  egone  ?  Nonius  Marcellus  cites  the  latter  part  of  this  verse 
twice  to  illustrate  Depexum  and  Exornare  (cf.  Quicherat's  ed.  pp. 
7  and  336).  The  MSS.  have  egone.  Quicherat  inconsistently  reads 
ego  nae  in  the  first  place  and  egone  f  in  the  second.  Even  as  early 
as  the  fourth  century,  however,  the  corruption  of  the  text  (which 
was  no  doubt  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  use  of  egone)  had 
taken  place.  Donatus  in  his  commentary  on  Adelph.  Ill  3,  46 
quotes  thus,  Sed  Syrum  ME.  Quid  eum.  ?  Bentley,  without  know- 
ing the  reading  of  the  Bembinus,  saw  at  once  the  impropriety  of 
keeping  egone  ?  as  a  question.  I  give  his  comment  somewhat 
abridged.  ^'^ Egone  semper  respondet  verbo  secundae  personae  ut 
Phorm.  I  2,  7.  Sed  quid  tu  es  tristis  ?  Egone  ?  Huic  igitur 
loco  non  convenit.  Repone  Se'd  Syrum..  Quid  eum  f  Ego  si  vivo, 
eum  adeo  exornatiim  dabo.''  Fleckeisen  discusses  the  passage 
(Philol.  II,  p.  76,  1847)  and  proposes  Sed  Syrum  M.  Quid  eum  ? 
CH.  neego  sivivo,  etc.  In  his  ed.  of  1865,  however  (not,  as  it  seems, 
having  ascertained  the  Bembine's  reading),  he  gives,  with  hiatus, 
Sed  Syrum  quidem  ego  si  vivo,  etc.  Wagner,  both  in  his  German 
and  English  edition  of  the  play,  adopts  egomet,  Klette's  emenda- 


tion  (Rhein.  Mus.  XIV,  p.  467).  Shuckburgh,  the  latest  editor 
(1878),  who  however  has  never  heard  of  Umpfenbach's  critical  edi- 
tion, follows  Fleckeisen.  For  quidetn  used  before  a  conditional 
clause,  to  make  emphatic  a  preceding  accusative,  I  need  only  to 
refer  to  the  passage  cited  above,  Bacch.  1184,  and  And.  164,  quern 
quidem  ego  si  seiisero.  If  MS.  authority  is  to  have  any  weight  in 
the  passages  above  discussed,  egone  stands  in  need  of  no  defence. 
Its  meaning  may  be  illustrated  by  the  early  use  of  the  asseverative 
enim  to  emphasize  a  conditional  statement,  Persa  236,  Enim  non 
ibis  nunc  vicissim  nisi  scio.  Compare  the  similar  use  of  the 
stronger  compound  enim,  vera,  Phorm.937,  Enimve'ro  si porro esse 
odiosi  pc'rgitis  .  .  where  the  threat  is  broken  off  by  Demipho's 
asking  Quid  fades  ? 

In  seven  of  the  examples  already  given  it  must  have  been 
noticed  that  ne  precedes  a  conditional  clause.  Hidden  away  amid 
the  critical  apparatus  of  Terence  I  have  found  a  tun  which  I  think 
may  now  claim  admission  to  the  text. 

Adelph.  770  (V  I,  8): 

Tun  si  meus  esses.  .  .  SY.  Di's  quidem  esses  Demea 
Ac  tuam  rem  constabilisses.     DE.  exemplo  omnibus 
Curarem  ut  esses. 

G  alone  has  tu.  Umpfenbach  attributes  the  n  of  tun  in  P  to  a 
second  hand.  I  myself  could  see  no  trace  of  a  correction,  and 
there  is  no  crowding  of  the  letters.  As  there  is  evidently  no  inter- 
rogation here,  the  editors  with  one  consent  have  eliminated  the  n. 
The  interrupted  threat  of  Demea,  to  which  Syrus  gives  so  witty  a 
turn,  is  taken  up  again  in  the  words  exemplo  omnibus.  The 
form  tun  shows  convincingly  what  we  might  have  inferred  equally 
well  from  the  forms  hicine,  hocine,  that  the  ne  in  these  formulas  is 
enclitic  and  short,  and  therefore  this  ne  is  not  to  be  identified  with 
the  prepositive  ne,  as  has  sometimes  happened  in  the  passages 
containing  egone  si. 

The  next  example  is  of  a  somewhat  different  character.     Pseud. 

371(13,137): 

Ecquid  te  pudet? 
BAL.  Ten  amatorem  esse  inventum  inanem  quasi  cassam  nucem. 

Ten  is  found  only  in  the  Ambrosianus,  the  other  MSS.  have  te. 
Ritschl  in  his  edition  writes  ted  to  obviate  hiatus,  tacitly  recognizing 
the  fact  that  the  infinitive  depends  directly  on  pudet,  and  that  there 
is  no  room  here  either  for  a  question  or  an  indignant  exclamation. 


In  Neue  Plaut.  Excurse,  Heft  I,  p.  44,  he  prefers  to  keep  ten, 
adding,  "  obgleich  die  Erklarung  des  Fragesatzes  im  dortigen 
Zusammenhange  nicht  ganz  einfach  ist."  Bergk,  in  his  treatise  on 
Auslautendes  D  im  alten  Latein,  p.  53,  remarks,  "  Ich  wUnschte 
R.  hatte  diese  Erklarung  gegeben  ;  denn  mir  erscheint  das  fragende 
ne  dort  ganz  unstatthaft."  He  calls  attention  too  to  the  fragment 
of  Ennius  quoted  by  Cic.  de  Div.  I  31,  66 : 

Hoc  dolet 
Men  obesse,  illos  prodesse,  me  obstare,  illos  obsequi. 

where  AV  have  men,  which  Ribbeck  retains,  Trag.  Frag.  p.  21. 
Bergk's  own  suggestion  that  the  n  is  either  a  phonetic  affix  to 
prevent  hiatus  or  a  relic  of  the  old  accusative  ending  m,  hardly 
deserves  serious  consideration.  Fleckeisen  keeps  tene  as  question, 
Brix  in  Jahn's  Jahrb.  115,  p.  331,  discusses  the  passage  at  length, 
giving  as  the  proper  reading  for  verse  370 : 

Niimquid  aliud  etiam  voltis  dicere?     CAL.  Ecquid  te  pudet? 

He  too  reads  ten  t.X.c.,  as  a  sort  of  jeering  retort  made  by  the  leno 
in  the  form  of  a  question  dependent  in  thought  xx^on  pudet.  If  we 
compare  however  passages  like  Adelph.  432  Numquid  vis  ?  DE. 
Mentem  vdbis  meliorem  dari,  and  Mil.  617  f. : 

PE.  Quid  id  est  quod  cruciat  ?  cedo. 
PL.  Me  tibi  istuc  aetatis  homini  facinora  puerilia 
Obicere,  etc. 

I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  a  direct  statement  dependent 
on  pudet  understood  is  much  more  natural.  Ten  has  the 
force  of  te  enim  or  te  vero,  only  somewhat  weaker.  This  is  made 
clear  by  two  analogous  passages,  Capt.  566"'' (III  4,  36)  : 

Tu  enim  repertu's,  Phi'locratem  qui  superes  veriverbio. 

and  Pseud.  631"  (II  2,  36) : 

Vae  tibi :  tu  inventus  vero,  meam  qui  furcilles  fidem. 

In  dependent  statement  tu  enim  repertus  might  have  been  expressed 
by  Plautus  thus,  ten  esse  repertum.  Lorenz,  although  he  reads 
Pseud.  359  (=371'')  ted  esse  inventum,  translates  "Ja  daruber 
dass  du,"  and  this  ja  gives  the  sense  of  ne  or  enim.  In  Pseud. 
631,  Plautus  may  have  written  Vde  tibi :  tiin  inventus  vero,  which 
would  relieve  us  of  the  necessity  of  either  admitting  hiatus  after  1u 
or  scanning  tibi.  The  n  would  fall  out  very  easily  before  inventjis, 
as  it  has  in  Pseud.  371  in  all  the  MSS.  except  A.     With  the  verbs 


invenio  and  reperio  the  use  of  some  affirmative  particle  may  have 
been  especially  common.     Another  instance  is  furnished  by  Eun. 

930  (V  4,  8)  : 

turn  hoc  alterum, 
Id  verost  quod  ego  mihi  puto  palmarium 
Men  repperisse,  quo  mode  adulescentulus 
Meretncum  ingenia  et  mores  posset  noscere,  etc. 

A  has  MEN  at  first  hand,  but  some  late  scribe  has  struck  out  the 
N.  The  Vaticanus  also  has  men.  The  editors  read  me,  but  Ttien 
must  be  kept,  I  think,  as  another  instance  of  survival.  Lest  I  may 
seem  over-hasty  in  claiming  for  ne  the  force  of  enim,  I  wish  to  call 
in  here  the  evidence  of  an  old  glossary.  On  p.  52  of  Codex  Par. 
7610  (saec.  XIII)  2d  part,  at  the  close  of  quite  a  long  article  on 
ne,  I  found  these  words :  '■'Ne  adverbium  corripitur  scilicet  pro 
enim  vel  pro  nonne  hoc  est  interrogativum  vel  affirmativum. 
Dehortativum  vero  producitur  et  conjunctio  similiter."  (Exactly 
the  same  words  may  be  read  in  Cod.  Par.  761 1  (saec.  XIII)  p.  105, 
and  Cod.  Par.  7612  (saec.  XIV)  p.  115.)  The  testimony  is  une- 
quivocal. I  wish  I  might  trace  it  back  to  its  first  source.  I  could 
show,  if  space  permitted,  that  much  of  the  article  on  ne  coincides 
in  phraseology  with  Priscian,  and  represents  good  grammatical  tra- 
dition ;  but  I  have  searched  through  Keil's  edition  of  the  Grammatici 
Latini  in  vain  for  any  coupling  of  enim  and  nonne  to  explain 
different  sides  of  7ic.  In  the  light  of  this  gloss  it  is  interesting  to 
recall  Fleckeisen's  emendation  of  hocine  to  hoc  enim.  in  Mil.  309, 
and  Langen's  proposal  to  substitute  w«2/i/«^  .^  for  mihi  enim.  f  in 
Casina  II  6,  14  (cf  Ceitrage  p.  267.)  Seyffert  too  would  substi- 
tute in  Rud.  1003  Ita?ie  vero  ?  for  Ita  enim  vero  ?  which  does  not 
occur  elsewhere.  In  my  judgment  we  must  also  recognize  the 
enclitic  nc  in  the  following  passage.  Cure.  138  ff.  (I  2,  47) : 

Tu  me  curato  ne  sitiam:  ego  tibi  quod  amas  iam  hue  adducam. 
Phaed.  Tibine  ego,  si  fidem  servas  mecum  vineam  pro  aurea  statua  statuam, 
Quae  tuo  gutturi  sit  monimentum. 

Tibi  ne  ego,  BEJF.  To  the  separation  of  tibi  and  ne  in  the  MSS.  no 
great  importance  can  be  attached.  It  often  occurs  where  the  ne 
stands  in  a  question,  cf  Cure.  419  tu  ne  in  B,  82  ei  ne  BE. 
M filler,  Plaut.  Pros.  p.  405,  reads  with  transposition,  ne  ego  tibi, 
etc.  Fleckeisen  (cf  Philologus  II,  p.  107)  omitting  tibi  reads  ne 
ego,  si  Jide'm  \ttc\  mecjim  servas  aured  pro  statua.  Mahler,  in  his 
dissertation  De  Pronominum   Personalium   apud   Plautum   collo- 


catione,  has  shown  that  ego  tibi  is  the  normal  position  unless 
special  emphasis  is  to  be  given  the  pronoun  of  the  second 
person.  Here  tibi  is  emphatic,  and  the  ne  belongs  more  properly 
to  it  than  to  ego.  If  ego  were  emphatic  and  ne  the  asseverative 
particle  of  which  Fleckeisen  treats,  we  should  expect  this  order,  ne 
ego  tibi.  There  is  no  certain  proof,  as  we  shall  see  later,  that  7ie 
is  found  postpositive  with  pronouns.  The  reading  tibine  is  still 
further  supported  by  the  fact  that  a  conditional  clause  si  Jidem 
servas  follows  ;  but  even  without  this  it  might  be  defended  by  the 
following  remarkable  passage,  where  ne,  undoubtedly  enclitic, 
occurs  and  is  retained  by  the  latest  editor,  Goetz,  Epid.  541  (IV  i, 

14): 

Plane  hicinest  is,  qui  in  Epidauro  primus  pudicitiarn  mihi  pepulit. 

The  MSS.  have  hicine  or  hiccine ;  is  has  been  added  by  Goetz. 
Camerarius  emends  to  hie  ille  est.  Prof.  Studemund  has  been 
kind  enough  to  furnish  me  with  his  own  reading  of  the  Ambro- 
sianus,  which,  as  it  differs  somewhat  from  that  of  Loewe,  I  will  here 
give.  The  verse  is  divided  up  between  two  lines.  At  the  end  of 
the  first  LANE  Kic  .  .  .  s  .  can  be  deciphered  with  space  enough 
for  HICINEST.     In  the  second  line,  after  a  brief  space,  inepidauro 

VIRGINI    PRIMUS    PUDI     .      .      .     lAM    PE     .     .     ULIT.       PepuHt    waS 

probably  miswritten/>^;^M/zy.  '^\\k\ex primiis ,  which  is  found  in  the 
other  MSS.  also,  or  virgini,  must  be  due  to  a  gloss.  I  prefer  to 
keep />rmwj' and  to  regard  540  and  541  as  anapaestic  septenarii. 

540.  Certo  east,  quam  in  Epidauro  memini  me  pauperculam  conprimere. 
Phil.  Plane  hicinest  qui  mihi  in  Epidauro  primus  pudicitiarn  pepulit. 

The  parallelism  between  these  two  emphatic  statements  will  be 
perceived  at  once.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  a  question  present. 
The  hicine  is  simply  a  stronger  hie,  if  you  choose  hie  enini  or  hie 
vero. 

Other  corresponding  cases  of  hicine  I  confess  I  have  not  found. 
The  usage  must  have  been  obsolescent  even  in  the  time  of  Plautus. 
Later  recensions  may  have  removed  the  few  cases  of  its  occurrence, 
and  substituted  other  expressions  in  their  place.  Geppert,  so  far  , 
as  I  know,  is  the  only  modern  editor  who  for  the  sake  of  the  verse 
has  inserted  ne  where  there  is  no  interrogation.  I  am  unable  to 
learn,  from  the  books  at  my  command,  that  he  has  anywhere 
explained  the  usage,  or  supported  it  by  such  examples  based  on 
MS.  authority  as  I  have  given.     For  the  sake  of  completeness  I 


lO 

give  the  passages  which  in  a  note  on  Trin.  589  (see  his  ed.  p.  163) 
he  has  thus  emended:  Pseud.  348  huncine,  410  hucine,  954  illici- 
nest,  1 175  hicine ;,  Rud.  778  huncine,  1357  illicine ;  Stich.  435 
huncine  ;  Trin.  590  istucine. 

I  cannot  undertake  to  discuss  these  passages  here.  It  is  no  part 
of  my  present  purpose  to  bring  forward  the  letter  w  as  a  rival  of 
the  ablatival  d  with  which  some  editors  have  so  liberally  be- 
sprinkled the  text  of  the  early  poets.  I  shall  be  satisfied  if  I 
succeed  in  shielding  it  in  the  passages  where  it  does  occur.  To 
do  this  more  effectually,  I  propose  to  show  that  an  enclitic  ne  with 
affirmative  force  is  recognized  by  the  ancient  grammarians,  as  may 
be  proved  from  their  works  and  from  glossaries  founded  upon 
ancient  sources.    I  have  already  given  one  such  proof  above. 

Priscian  (Keil  II,  p.  loi)  says :  "  Dubitativae  sunt,  quae  dubit- 
ationem  significant,  ut  an,  ne  correpta,  necyie  ...  (I  omit  the 
examples)  frequentissime  tamen  eaedem  interrogativae  sunt,  ut 
Virgilius  in  III'  Aeneidos :  Hec  torts  Andromache  Pyrrhin'  con- 
ubia  servas  ?  Idem  in  X  :^  tanton'  me  crimine  dignum  ?  Haec 
eadem  invenitur  et  pro  confirmativa  ut  Horatius  in  IP  sermonum  : 

Clarus  erit,  fortis,  iustus,  sapiensne  etiam  et  rex. 

Idem  in  I :  ^ 

O  seri  studiorum,  quine  putetis 
Difficile  et  mirum  Rhodio  quod  Pitholeonti 
Contigit. 

Terentius  in  Andria :  * 

Nuncine  demum  istud  verbum  in  te  incidit. 

Hie  enim  ne  conjunctio  nee  interrogativa,  nee  dubitativa,  sed  con- 
firmativa est.     Virgilius  in  X  : " 

Tantane  me  tenuit  vivendi,  nate,  voluptas 
Ut  pro  me  hostili  paterer  succumbere  dextra? 

Est  enim  pro  etiam.'" 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  all  these  passages  it  is  the  enclitic  7ie  of 
which  Priscian  is  treating,  and  not  the  asseverative  ne  to  which 
(Keil  II,  p.  479)  he  assigns  the  meaning  -o  -(hu  and  the  circumflex 
accent.     Priscian's  use  of  the  terms  affirmativa  and  conjirmativa 

1  Aen.  Ill  319.  i*  Aen.  X  668. 

3  Hor.  Sal.  II  3,  97.  *  Hor.  Sat.  I  10,  21. 

*Cf.  And.  V  3,  II  and  14,  and  IV  I,  59.  *  Aen.  X  846. 


II 

may  be  better  understood  by  reference  to  the  following  passages, 
Keil  II,  pp.  85,  103,  156,  243,  253,  287,  337,  et  al.  He  includes 
under  them  the  Greek  '^  and  the  Latin  nam,  enim,  ergo,  etiam, 
in  particular  phases  of  their  use ;  e.  g.  for  enim  in  affirmative  sense 
he  very  properly  cites  (Keil  II,  p.  104)  Adelph.  II  i,  14  enim  non 
sinam..  As  confirm.ativa  he  also  enumerates  (II,  p.  85)  profecto, 
scilicet,  quippe,  videlicet  and  nempe.  Now  nempe  is  one  of  those 
particles  in  the  pronunciation  of  which  the  nicest  discrimination  is 
required  to  settle  upon  the  proper  voice-inflection,  and  we  get  no 
comfort  here  from  the  editors.  The  very  passage  cited  by 
Priscian  from  Persius  to  illustrate  the  affirmative  sense  of  nempe, 
namely  Sat.  Ill  i,  nempe  haec  assidue,  is  given  by  Jahn  and 
Duebner  with  a  question  mark,  by  Hart  with  an  exclamation  point, 
by  Gildersleeve,  Pretor  and  Heinrich  with  a  colon.  The  scholiast 
too  regards  it  as  a  question  and  attaches  to  nempe  the  sense  of 
num,quid  non.  Acron  in  his  commentary  on  Horace,  Sat.  I  10,  i, 
says :  "  Nempe  aut  interrogantis  aut  confirmantis."  In  Trin.  427. 
(II  4.25): 

LE.  Nempe  quas  spopondi.     ST.  immo  '  quas  despondi'  inquito. 

Parens,  Ritschl,  and  Wagner  have  a  period  after  spopondi ; 
Fleckeisen,  Geppert  and  Brix  a  question  mark.  Riley  trans- 
lates "These,  I  suppose  that  I  was  security  for?"  Bonnel 
Thornton  renders  very  briefly  "  I  engaged  for."  Shall  we  then 
cry  out  that  Parens,  Ritschl,  Wagner  and  Thornton  are  perfect 
dolts  because  they  did  not  see,  what  ought  to  have  been  as  plain 
as  day,  that  nempe  quas  spopondi  is  a  question  ?  or  shall  we  call 
Brix  an  ignoramus  because  he  did  not  divine  that  a  Roman  spend- 
thrift would  certainly  have  dropped  his  voice  before  he  reached 
that  melancholy  word  spopondi?  Yet  Hand's  treatment  of 
Priscian  is  not  more  fair  when  he  says,  Tursellinus,  vol.  IV,  p.  73, 
"  Nemo  vero  incautius  in  hac  re  versatus  est  quam  Priscianus. 
Nam  postquam  exposuerat  ne  et  dubitationem  significare  et  in 
interrogatione  poni,  loquitur  de  vi  confirmativa,  collatis  exemplis 
prorsus  alienis  et  male  expositis  ita,  ut  ad  extremum  addat :  est 
enim  pro  etiam.."  Let  us  look  at  these  '  exempla  prorsus  aliena  ' 
a  little  more  closely.  It  is  well  to  premise  that  when  Priscian  calls 
ne  a  dubitative  particle  he  does  not  deny  that  lustitiaene  prius 
mirer  belline  laborum  ?  is  a  question,  and  when  he  speaks  of  ne 
as  confirmative,  he  refers  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  particle,  and 
to  the  peculiar  coloring  which  it  gives  to  any  utterance,  and  he  is 


12 

not  at  pains  to  tell  us  what  inflection  we  are  to  give  the  voice.  He 
leaves  it  free  to  the  scholiast  of  Persius  to  decide  that  nempe  is  a 
question,  but  he  has  felt  nevertheless  the  true  force  oi  nempe.  The 
Vergil  passage  beginning  tantane,  speaks  for  itself.  It  is  a 
question  and  Priscian  recognized  it  as  such,  and  yet  he  interprets 
ne  by  etiam,  which  he  elsewhere  styles  confirmative.  So  sapiensne, 
if  I  mistake  not,  would  mean  for  Romans  '  wise  forsooth,'  and 
might  be  so  pronounced  as  to  convey  to  one  person  the  feeling  of 
questioning  doubt,  to  another  of  ironical  assurance.  Acron  says  of 
it,  "Aut  interrogatio  audientis  aut  dicentis  dubitatio."  To  my 
mind  ne  has  quite  the  force  of  nempe  in  Hor.  Ep.  I  i6,  31 : 

'  nempe 
Vir  bonus  et  prudens  dici  delector  ego   ac  tu.' 

An  instructive  Plautine  parallel  for  quine  is  found  in  Epid.  449 

(1114,13): 

Ego  sum  si  quid  vis.     MIL.  Nempe  quem  in  adulescentia 
Memorant  apud  rages  armis,  arte  duellica 
Divitias  magnas  indeptum  ? 

Here  of  course  the  relative  clause  is  not  one  of  characteristic  re- 
quiring the  subjunctive,  but  this  does  not  aflect  the  force  of 
nempe.  Acidalius  changes  for  metrical  reasons  nempe  quem  to 
quemne,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Goetz.  We  shall  see  later  on 
that  Scaliger  identifies  this  ne  oi  quemjie  with  the  ne  of /««^  (com- 
monly written  tu  ne),  which  every  one  admits  to  be  affirmative. 
Porphyrion  moreover  says,  "  ne  adjectum,  ut  egone,  hine  ;  abundat 
ne  syllaba."  Acron  quotes  Priscian,  but  is  evidently  in  the  same 
confusion  in  which  most  of  the  modern  editors  are.  For  the 
very  latest  theory  on  this  subject  see  Keller,  Epilegomena 
zu  Horaz,  p.  507,'  where  quine  is  said  to  be  the  fuller  form  for  quin 
and  qui  a  modal-instrumental.  Does  Keller  mean  to  assign  to 
quine  the  force  of '  how  not'?  Really  the  most  sensible  comment 
which  I  have  found  is  that  of  Cruquius.  "  Videtur  autem  mihi," 
he  says,  "  esse  Atticism  us  pro  "?  yz  ''  qui  utique,  qui  certe,  nam  ea 

'  "  Dieses  quine  ist,  was  bis  jetzt  noch  Niemand  beachtet  zu  haben  scheint,  die 
vollere  Form  fiir  quin,  nichts  anderes ;  und  qui  ist  somit  nicht  eigentlich  der 
Nominativ,  sondern  der  Instrumental-Modalis." 

-  Cf.  Lucian  Charon  24 : 

'0  rfjc  avolag,  61  ye  ovk  laaatv — 
and  Ovid  Fast.  II  45  : 

A  !  nimium  faciles  qui  tristia  crimina  caedis 
Fluminea  tolli  posse  putetis  aqua! 


^3 

particula  ye  familiaris  est  Demostheni  in  ea  significatione."  Not 
that  I  admit  any  influence  of  Atticism.  But  it  maybe  claimed  that 
at  least  in  the  Terence  passage  Priscian  has  most  wofully  blundered. 
His  memory  has  indeed  played  him  false,  for  he  has  mixed  up 
three  passages  in  one,  but  his  interpretation  is  sound.  No  one  will 
fail  to  be  convinced  of  this  who  shall  compare  And.  683, 

Nihil  ad  te,  DA.  Quaere.      PA.  Em,  ntincin  demum  ?     DA.  At  iam  hoc  tibi 
inventum  dabo, 

with  Cas.  421  (III  I,  II), 

Meminero  ST.  Em !  nunc  Mint  te  demum  nullum  scitum  scitiust. 

The  ne  in  itself  is  as  much  affirmative  in  the  one  case  as  e7iim  in 
the  other.  Here  too  we  have  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  near- 
ness of  ne  to  enim,  and  the  real  worth  of  the  gloss  already  given. 
And  this  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  other  glosses.  Although 
Ritschl,  Loewe  and  others  have  abundantly  shown  how  much  light 
may  be  shed  on  the  signification  of  a  word  by  a  neglected  gloss,  as 
yet  only  a  beginning  has  been  made  in  the  utilization  of  the  riches 
which  the  old  glossaries  contain.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  before 
many  years  Loewe,  whose  admirable  design  is  set  forth  in  the 
Prodromus  Corporis  Glossariorum  Latinorum  (Leipzig,  1876), 
will  provide  us  with  the  material.  I  have  been  able  to  examine  for 
my  special  purpose  most  of  the  important  glossaries  to  be  found  in 
the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  in  Paris,  and  in  the  Libraries  of  Berne 
and  St.  Gall.  For  the  sake  of  convenience  I  will  here  name  the 
principal  of  these.  Foremost  of  all  is  the  famous  Liber  Glossarum 
Cod.  Sangermanensis  12,  13,  Parisinus  11529  and  11530  (cf.  Loewe 
in  Prod.  p.  225,  Wilmanns  in  Rhein.  Mus.  XXIV,  p.  367,  and 
Usener  in  same  vol.  p.  387).  For  some  reason  Prinz,  who  supplied 
Wilmanns  with  data  in  regard  to  this  glossary,  mentions  only  the 
early  part  of  it  as  in  existence.  The  glossary  does  not,  however, 
as  he  states,  close  with  E ;  the  second  tome,  containing  the  letters 
F-Z,  being  designated  by  the  catalogue  number  11530.  It  con- 
tains 246  leaves,  on  the  first  of  which  is  written,  Antiqui  glossarii 
pars  secunda  S.  Germ.  lat.  12,  2.  The  whole  work  is  thus  desig- 
nated in  the  catalogue,  "  Glossarium  antiquissimum  Ansileubi 
putatur."  Usener,  whose  patience  in  such  investigation  is  well 
known,  could  get  no  definite  information  in  regard  to  this  worthy 
bishop.  The  codex  belongs  to  the  eighth  century.  I  shall  refer 
to  it  as  A. 


Cod.  Bernensis      i6,  saec.       IX  = 


258 


IX  =  b 


li 

224 

(< 

X  =  c 

a 

A 

,92,1 

(t 

IX  =  d 

Parisin 

us 

7640 

(( 

X=e 

(( 

7641 

(1 

X=f 

i( 

7642 

(( 

Xl=.g 

** 

7643 

<l 

XI  =  h 

M 

7644 
7610 

(4 

xin  =  i 
xni  =  k 

(I 

761 1 
7612 

it 

XIII  =/ 

XIV  =  m 

t( 

7680 

(( 

IX-X  =  «, 

tl 

7690 

(t 

IX  =0, 

14 

a,  is  a  copy  of  the  Liber  Glossarum,  con- 
taining the  letters  A-E. 
belong  to  the  so-called  affatim  glossaries 
described  by  Loewe,  Prod.  p.  no  f. 


^} 


"  Sangallensis  907  "        VIII  : 

908  "VI-VIII: 

912  "  VIII: 

238  "  VIII  : 


cf.  Loewe,  Prod.  p.  229. 


n,  Abavus  Glossary,  cf.  Prod.  p.  103. 

o,  has  three  separate  vocabularies,  cf.  Prod. 

p.  88. 
/ 
1 
r.     cf.  Prod.  p.  139. 


Of  printed  glossaries  I  have  consulted  Glossarium  Lat.  Bibliothecae 
Par.  antiquissimum  saec.  IX.  (ed.  Hildebrand,  Goettingen  1854)  = 
H  ;  Luctatii  Placidi  Glossae  (ed.  Deuerling,  Leipzig  1875)  =  P ;  and 
the  glossary  appended  to  De  Vit's  ed.  of  Forcellini's  Latin  Diction- 
ary. Finally,  through  the  kindness  of  Prof.  Studemund  of  Strassburg 
I  have  had  access  to  one  of  the  rarest  of  incunabula,  namely, '  Salo- 
monis  ecclesiae  Constantiensis  epi  glosse '  described  by  Usener 
Rhein.  Mus.  XXIV,  p.  389  =  S. 

I  shall  give  first  the  glosses  in  which  jie  is  interpreted  by  ergo. 


egone :  ego  ergo.     A  a  g  h  s  c  n. 

egone :  ego  ergo  vel  numquid  ego  propterea. 

egotie  :  ego  ergo  an  ego.     i. 

egone :  ego  ergo  numquid  ego.     n. 

he  cine :  ista,  hec  ergo.     A  k  1  m  g  h  i. 

hocine  :  hoc  ergo.     q. 

huncine  :  hunc  ergo.     q. 

Placidi.     Istamcine  (sic)  .•  stam  ergo.     A  P. 

Istancine :  istam  ergo  an  iste.     k  1. 

istacine :  ista  ergo.     i. 

istanccine :  ista  ergo  ?  an  istam.     i^. 

De  Glos.     mene :  me  ergo.     A  d  h  i  q  s. 

mene :  vero  pro  anme  vel  me  ergo.     kl. 


eS. 


m. 


15 

mene :  vera  pro  amne  vel  me  ergo. 

nonne :  non  ergo,     q  s. 

ne  :  ergo,     s  c. 

nullane  :  ergo  nulla.     A. 

satin :  satis  ergo.     A  h  i. 

tantane  :  tanta  ergo.     A  h  i  n  q. 

tune  :  tu  ergo,     b  n  c. 

tune :  nunc  tu  vel  vero,  tu  ergo.     e. 

It  has  thus  been  shown  that  in  glossaries  of  widely  different 
character  and  origin  ergo  is  a  very  common  interpretation  of  ne. 
But  some  of  these  glossaries  are  themselves  as  old  as  the  VIII 
century.  The  sources  must  lie  much  further  back.  As  we  have 
seen,  the  gloss  istamcine  :  stam  ergo  is  due  to  Placidus  and  prob- 
ably referred  to  a  passage  from  Plautus,  although  this  form  does 
not  occur  in  the  extant  plays.  On  the  other  hand  the  gloss  me7i'e  : 
me  ergo,  which  in  the  Liber  Glossarum  is  preceded  by  the  yiota 
'  De  Glos.',  is  probably  due  to  some  early  commentator  on  Vergil,  as 
also  the  gloss  tantane  :  tanta  ergo.  Probus  in  discussing  the  use 
of  ne  (Keil  IV,  p.  145)  quotes  Verg.  Aen.  i,  37,  mene  incepto 
desistere  victam?  and  Aen.  i,  132,  tantane  vos  generis  tenuit  fidu- 
cia  vestri?  which  afterwards  became  stock  illustrations  of  the 
grammarians.  Now  in  his  comment  on  the  first  passage  Servius 
says,  "  mene,  ne  non  vacat,  significat  enim  ergo  et  est  conjunctio 
rationalis,  et  mene  sic  habet  emphasim  ut  Ast  ego  quae  divum 
incedo  regina.'^  Very  like  this  is  his  comment  on  Verg.  Bucol. 
3,  21,  "An  mihi  cantando  victus  non  redderet  ille.  An  pro  ergo 
ut  Cominianus  dicit."  It  is  remarkable  that  Charisius  (Keil  I, 
p.  229),  commenting  on  the  force  of  an,  in  the  same  passage  says, 
"  Sed  Marcius  Salutaris  vir  perfectissimus  pro  ergo  rectius  sensit." 
The  inference  then  is  perhaps  not  unfair  that  Servius  borrowed  from 
Cominianus,  and  Cominianus  from  Marcius  Salutaris,  who  probably 
flourished  early  in  the  fourth  century.  He  in  turn  may  have 
borrowed  it  from  some  earlier  grammarian.  As  the  explana- 
tion of  ne  in  mene  by  ergo  became  traditional  doctrine,  it  need 
excite  no  wonder  that  the  gloss  was  extended  to  numerous  other 
cases,  and  thus  found  its  way  at  last  into  the  glossaries.  It  must  be 
conceded  then  that  the  gloss  itself  may  lay  claim  to  a  very 
respectable  antiquity,  that  it  antedates  the  Bembinus  of  Terence 
and  the  Ambrosianus  of  Plautus,  as  well  as  Donatus.  There  would 
seem  to  be  no  good  reason  why  we  should  deny  an  equally  early 


lb 

origin  to  the  interpretation  of  ne  by  vero  found  quite  as  frequently 
in  the  same  glossaries,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  exhibit : 

anne  :  an  vero.     A  i.' 

anne:  nonne  an  vero  adverbiunt  inter rogandi.     gm. 

hicine :  hie  vero.     A,  corrupted  in  h  into  hiccine :  hie  virgo. 

hicine :  ex  ea  re.     A. 

hiccine  pro  hicne,  hiccine,  hie  vero  ex  ea  re.     i  k  1  m. 

De  Glos.     Hoc :  istud.     A. 

Hocine :  ocvero  (sic).     A. 

hoc:  istud vel tale)  ,  ,         ,      • 

;-  kimghcio. 
hoccine  :  hoc  vero  ) 

hoccine  :■  hoc  vero  vel  hoc  usque  hoc putas.     ne  S. 

hocine  :  hoc  verum.     r. 

hacine :   hac  ergo       1  •  c  u- 1 

hanci?ie :    istam  vero  J 

hoscine  :    hos  vero.     q  1  k  m  i  o  n. 

haecifie  :  ita  vero.     p  r. 

V\Yg\]\  hiincine — histum  vero.     Ai. 

hunecine  (sic) :  istH  vero  an  hunc.     k. 

hunccine :  istutn  vero  an  hunc.     q  h  i  1. 

itane :  ita  vero.     A  q  S. 

De  Glos.     itane :  ita  vero.     i. 

itane  :  putas  sic,  ita  ergo  vero  \       c 

itine :  ita  vero  ) 

mene :  vero  pro  anme  vel  me  ergo.     1  m. 

tune :  nunc  tu  vel  vero  tu  ergo.     e. 

Compare  with  these  H,  p.  159,  haec  inde  :  haec  vero,  haecvero  : 
haec  inde ;  p.  162,  hiscinet :  ipsius  autem,  hoccine:  hoc  vero ; 
p.  163,  hoscine :  hos  vero  ;  p.  186,  ita  vero  :  itinestet,  itine :  ita  vero. 
Finally  in  i  I  have  found  siccine :  sic  etiam.  That  these  glosses 
go  back  to  an  ancient  source  may,  I  think,  be  made  clear  by  the 
following  considerations:  (i)  The  orthography  itself  of  the  Liber 
Glossarum  points  to  a  good  source,  for  it  is  better  than  that  which 
Priscian  lays  down  as  correct.  He  teaches  (Keil  I,  p.  592),  "  Ce 
quoque  solebant  per  omnes  casus  vetustissimi  addere  articularibus 
vel  demonstrativis  pronominibus,  hoc  est  ab  aspiratione  incipienti- 
bus,  ut  hicce,  huiusce,  haecce,  hocce  unde  hoc  quasi  duabus  conso- 

'  This  gloss  may  throw  some  light  on  Phorm.  175  where  Dziatzko  reads 
earn  anne  for  the  unintelligible  amare  of  the  MSS.,  and  Eugraphius  has  an  vero, 
which  may  be  due  to  a  gloss. 


17 

nantibus  sequentibus  solent  poetae  producere — et  sic  in  antiquis- 
simis  codicibus  invenitur  bis  c  scriptum,  quomodo  est  apud  Teren- 
tium  in  Andria  :   Hoccine  est  credibile  aut  memorabile  ?  " 

Now  of  what  date  Priscian's  '  codices  antiquissimi '  were  we  do 
not  know.  We  see,  however,  that  the  false  orthography  with  two 
^'s  came  in  quite  early.  It  is  found  in  all  the  later  MSS.  of  Plautus 
and  Terence.  Cf  Bacch.  1090,  hoccine  BCD;  Haut.  203, 
hunc  cine  D ;  hunccine  EF ;  And.  236,  hoccine  BCEGP.  The 
Liber  Glossarum  agrees  with  the  Bembinus  and  the  Ambrosianus 
in  having  but  one  c,  while  the  later  glossaries  have  commonly 
two.  (2)  It  has  been  shown  by  Usener  (Rhein..  Mus.  XXIV, 
p.  383)  that  the  nota  '  Virgili '  which  is  prefixed  in  A  to 
the  gloss  huncine :  hisium  vera  indicates  that  the  gloss  was 
drawn  either  from  a  glossary  to  Vergil,  or  from  a  glossed  MS.  of 
Vergil  based  upon  the  commentary  of  Aelius  Donatus.  The  nota 
'  De  Glos.'  prefixed  in  i  to  itarie :  ita  vero  also  indicates  a 
good  source,  and  this  with  the  fact  that  the  same  gloss  occurs  in 
the  Liber  Glossarum  compels  me  to  reject  Loewe's  hypothesis 
(Prodromus,  p.  347)  that  the  glosses  staec :  ita  vero  and  itine :  ita 
vero  are  only  corruptions  of  a  fuller  gloss  itane  vero :  itine  stec. 
(3)  The  gloss  hoc :  istud  which  precedes  in  A  hocine :  oc  vero,  and 
which  also  has  on  the  margin  the  nota  '  De  Glos.'  takes  in  several 
other  MSS.  the  form  hoc :  istud  vel  tale.  The  explanation  by 
means  oi  talis  is  found  several  times  in  Servius,  cf.  Aen.  IX  481,  I 
253,  and  IV  237.  So  too  Donatus  to  Hec.  I  i,  3  remarks,  Hiscine 
\E  f)  (1)  rri  (T.i  q  id  est  talibus.  It  would  seem  then  to  be  no  unfair 
conclusion  that  the  tradition  of  these  glosses  reaches  back  to  the 
fourth  century  of  our  era.  It  may  possibly  go  even  further  back. 
The  gloss  hocine  :  hoc  vero  vel  hoc  usque,  which  indicates  clearly 
the  intensive  force  of  hocine,  may  well  be  compared  with  this  gloss 
from  Festus  (Miiller,  p.  358-9),  "  Tamne  :  eo  usque,  ut  Aelius  Stilo 
et  Opilius  Aurelius  interpretantur.  Itaque  Afranius :  '  Tamne 
arcula  tua  plena  est  aranearum,' "  which  Paulus  gives  thus,  "  Tanne : 
eo  usque,  Afranius  '  Tanne  arcula  tua  plena  est  aranearum  ' "  (cf. 
Ribbeck  Com.  Frag.  p.  217).  The  spelling  tanne  is  phonetic,  as 
Miiller  remarks,  pointing  to  Cicero's  well-known  statement  that 
cumnobis  was  pronounced  cunnobis.  Tamne  was  probably  of  rare 
occurrence  as  compared  with  sicine  or  itane.  It  is  not  found  in 
Terence.  Our  Plautine  texts  give  it  twice,  Merc.  172,  where  the  MSS. 
have  Tandem,  and  Mil.  628  where  B  has  tam  me,  the  rest  tamine. 
Better  vouchers  than  Varro's  teacher  and  than  Opilius  (or  Opillius), 
whom  Varro  often  follows,  we  could  hardly  desire. 


i8 

Now  nothing  compels  the  conclusion  that  in  the  first  instance  all 
these  glosses  were  made  to  explain  ne  used  in  interrogative 
sentences.  We  have  seen  that  Plautus  and  Terence  use  Hocine  si, 
Egone  si,  Hicine  si,  Tun  si,  etc.  I  have  looked  in  vain  in  Plautus 
for  an  example  of  ego  vero  si  or  hoc  vero  si,  or  in  fact  of  any 
pronoun  thus  strengthened  by  vero  before  a  conditional  clause. 
Cicero  however  does  employ  vero  in  this  way.  Compare  e.  g. 
Somn.  Scip.  VIII  i,  ego  vero,  siquidem — patet,  enitar ;  De  Domo 
47,  122,  ego  vero  si — dicer  em — defenderem  ;  Cat.  II  v,  Hunc 
vero  si  secuti  erunt  stii  comites,  where  vero  is  something  more  than 
but.  Cicero  aiso  uses  hie  vero  in  questions ;  e.  g.  De  Domo  38, 
102,  Hanc  vero,  pontifices,  lab  em  turpitudinis  et  inconstantiae 
poterit  pop2ili  Romatii  dignitas  sustinere  f  Plautus  never  uses 
hie  vero  in  this  way.  What  more  natural  then  than  for  an  acute 
observer,  noticing  the  difference  between  the  usage  of  Plautus  and 
later  writers  in  this  respect,  to  explain  ne  by  vero  f  A  passage  in 
Terence  where  the  MSS.  have  hie  vero  preceding  a  conditional 
clause,  here  challenges  our  attention.     Eun.  299  ff.  (II  3,  8)  : 

*  Hie  vero  est  qui  si  occeperit 

Ludum  iocumque  dicet  fuisse  ilhim  alterum,  |  praeut  hiiius 
Rabies  quae  dabit. 

So  reads  the  Bembinus.  Instead  of  dicet  BCDEGP  have  dices, 
and  in  v.  299  aniare  after  occeperit.  Modern  editors  following 
Bentley  begin  v.  301  with  praeut  huius.  Priscian  (Keil  II,  p.  50) 
quotes  the  passage  in  illustration  of  the  use  of  praeut,  giving  dices 
the  reading  of  the  Calliopian  recension,  but  not  amare,  although 
on  Lindemann's  evidence  a  Heidelberg  codex  has  qui  sic  amare 
occeperit.  Arusianus  quotes  with  dicet.  Wagner  remarks  on 
the  difficulty  of  the  passage  and  complains  of  previous  editors  for 
passing  over  it  sicco  pede.  Hie  and  qui  must  of  course  refer  to  the 
youth  Chaerea,  whereas  dicet  if  retained  must  have  for  its  subject 
senex.  This  sudden  change  of  subject  may  account  for  the 
confusion  of  Donatus,  if  we  are  to  credit  him  with  the  following 
remark,  "  Hie  vero  est :  Utrum  senex  an  Chaerea  ?  sed  senex 
potius/"  and  again,  " //ic  vero  est:  Senex  (which  is  of  course 
false)  Qui,  scilicet  Chaerea."  Compare  with  this  Eugraphius'  more 
intelligent  explanation,  "  Hie  adulescens,  si  amare  coeperit,  fratrem 
eius  Phaedriam  dices  ludum  et  iocum-  fuisse,  hoc  est,  non  amasse." 
In  his  Comment,  on  Eun.  II  3,  56  Donatus  cites  the  line  loosely 
thus,  O  infortunatum  senem,  si  et  hie  amare  coeperit.  Bentley 
says  of  dicet,  "eo  ipso  ineptum  est,  quod  quivis  aliquis  aeque 
dixerit.    Repone  dicas.''     Dices  if  used  of  a  definite  person  would 


19 

be  supported  by  Eun.  567,  Primam  dices,  scio,  si  videris.  For 
amare  occepit  compare  Adelph.  327,  Eun.  568,  Phorm.  82. 

In  view  of  passages  already  discussed  it  must  be  admitted  that 
Terence  might  have  written  Hicine  si  amare  occc'perit,  etc.  Did 
he,  for  the  sake  of  being  better  understood  by  the  coming 
generations,  avoid  an  obsolescent  usage,  and  for  the  sake  of  greater 
emphasis  employ  a  rather  awkward  circumlocution  the  like  of 
which  does  not  occur  in  Plautus  ? — hie  veto  est  qui  si.  As  con- 
servative critics  we  may  not  lay  ruthless  hands  upon  the  manu- 
script tradition,  but  when  we  remember  Ritschl's  dictum  (Proleg. 
P.  CXXl),'  "  longius  autem  aTerentiana  integritate  Bembinus, quam 
a  Plautina  Ambrosianus  abest,"  it  is  hard  to  escape  the  suspicion 
that  this  passage  in  its  present  form  is  due  to  a  later  revision,  at  a 
period  perhaps  when  it  was  common  to  gloss  hicine  by  hie  veroi' 
This  suspicion  is  rather  increased  by  Schlee's  comment  on  these  lines 
in  a  recent  dissertation,  Berlin  1879,  De  versuum  in  Canticis  Terenti- 
anis  consecutione,  p.  46,  "  mira  vero  ac  singularis  est  haec  versuum 
consecutio  et  qualis  nusquam  in  Terentii  canticis  occurrit."  The  dicet 
of  A  may  stand  for  an  original  dicetis  which  was  addressed  to  the 
audience  and  which  was  misread  dicet  is,  but  I  make  no  attempt  here 
to  reconstruct  the  lines.  If  we  consider  how  modern  editors  have 
changed  And.  478  and  similar  passages,  we  may  conceive  of  the 
ancients  being  even  bolder  in  their  emendations.  That  the  passage 
in  question  lends  strong  authority  to  the  ?ie :  vero  glosses  I  think  no 
one  will  deny.  The  same  service  is  rendered  for  the  ne :  ergo  glosses 
by  another  passage  in  Terence.     And.  849  f.  (V  2,  8)  : 

Eliam  tu  hoc  responde,  quid  istic  tibi  negotist  ?     DA.  Mi'hin?     SI.   Ita. 

DA.   Mihine.    SI.  Tibi  ergo.    DA.  Modo  ego  intro  ivi.    .SI.  Qv'iasi  ego  quam 
dudiim  rogem. 

Mihine  DGP,  michine  BCE.  For  responde  see  Becker,  Stude- 
mund's  Stud.  p.  177  f.  In  Prisc'an  (Keil  II,  p.  286)  we  read,  "Jr, 
conjunctio  tarn  completiva  quam  confirmativa  invenitur  apud  illos 
.  .  .  quomodo  apud  nos  vero  et  autem  .  .  .  similiter  waw,  eiiivi,  ergo 
non  solum  causales  vel  rationales  sed  etiam  completivae  et  confir- 
mativae  inveniuntur."  To  this  doctrine  he  recurs  later  on  (Keil 
II,  p.  337),  "  Nostri  quoque  frequenter  ergo  repletivi  loco  accipiunt. 
Terentius  in  Andria,  Mihi7ief  Tibi  ergo.''  In  another  place  'Keil 
II,  p.  100)  he  says  oi  ergo,  "  invenitur  tamen  etiam  pro  expletiva  ut 
Terentius  in  Andria  Mihine 9  Tibi  ergo.''  The  affirmative  force 
of  ergo  in  early  Latin  has  been  frequently  pointed  out  by  modern 

'  Cf.  Opusc.  V,  p.  371.  5  Cf.  however  Eun.  930. 


20 

scholars.  Ussing  in  a  note  on  Amphitruo  172  remarks  that  it  is 
equivalent  to  the  German  '  ja.' ' 

Now  it  is  a  little  singular  that  nowhere  in  Plautus  in  answer  to  the 
questions  mihine?  egone?  do  we  find  tibi  ergo  or  tu  ergo.  The 
following  instances  occur,  however,  of  ne,  used  in  such  an  answer. 
Trin.  634(111  2,  8): 

Egone?  LES.  Tune.  LYS.  Quid  male  facio  ?  LES.  Quod  ego  nolo,  id  quom  facis, 
tune  BCD. 

Epid.  575(IV2,  6): 

Tu  homo  insanis.  PER.  Egone?  PH.  Tune.  PER.  Quor?  PH.  Quia  ego  istanc 

quae  siet 

ego  ne  J         tune?  B        tu  ne  ]    tune     E    cf.  Goetz' 

ed.  of  Curculio  p.  xv. 
Stich.  635(IV2,  51}: 

Egone?  tune,     mihine?     tibine.     vi'den  ut  annonast  gravis? 
EGONE  TUNE  MIHINE  TIBINE  (sic  cum  spatiis)  A. 
egone?      tune?      mihine?      tibine?     BCD. 

Capt.  857  (IV  2,  77)  : 

Egone  ?  ER.  Tune.     HE.  Tum  tu  mi  igitur  erus  es.  ER.  Immo  benevolens. 

Sonnenschein  does  not  state  whether  tu  is  separated  from  ne  in  the 
MSS.  To  these,  two  other  passages  have  been  added  by  emenda- 
tion.    Most.  955  (IV  2,  38) : 

Egone?  AD.  Tune.     TH.  Ne  molestu's:  sine  me  cum  puero  loqui. 

So  Fleckeisen,  Philol.  II.  p.  92.     Egone  tu  tu  ne  molestus  BC.    tutune  D. 

Mil.  439  (II  5,  39) : 

Egone     SC.  Tune.     PH.  Quae  heri  Athenis  Ephesum  adveni  vesperi. 
tu.  MSS.     tu  ne.  Ritschl. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  authority  of  the  best  MSS.  so  far  as 
known  to  us,  favors  the  writing  of  tune  as  one  word.  This  is 
actually  done  by  Goetz  in  Epid.  575,  who  also  retains  as  we  have 
seen  haecine  in  Epid.  73,  and  hicine  in  Epid.  541.  But  the  other 
editors  write  tu  ne,  and  explain  ne  as  the  asseverative  particle 
which  in  older  editions  appears  as  nae.  In  this  they  follow  Fleck- 
eisen, who  in  the  second  volume  of  the  Philologus,  p.  61  ff.  has 
given  a  most  admirable  and  exhaustive  treatment  of  ne  in  its 
various   uses.       On    p.   91     he    sets    apart    by   themselves    the 

'  Lorenz  Philologus  32,  p.  296,  has  a  good  note  on  ergo,  in  which  he  shows 
that  this  is  only  a  partial  statement  of  the  truth.  There  is  indeed  danger  of 
losing  out  of  sight  the  causal  force  which  may  be  combined  with  the  confirma- 
tive. 


21 

instances  of  «^  which  we  have  just  cited,  as  exceptional  both  in 
position  and  in  force.  With  so  much  the  more  reason  can  we  claim 
that  the  ne  is  enclitic.  No  metrical  tests  can  show  that  the  e  of  7ie 
is  long,  as  it  is  found  in  the  thesis:  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
passage  from  Stichus  the  rapidity  of  movement  and  the  equipoise 
between  question  and  answer  in  both  pairs  Egonc  ?  tunc,  mihinif 
tibine.  is  quite  destroyed  if  we  read  Egonef  tu  ne.  mihinif 
tibi  ne.  Moreover,  if  we  change  the  quantity  we  lose  the  mocking 
echo  of  the  answer,  which  perhaps  more  than  anything  else  con- 
tributed to  keeping  these  formulas  alive  so  long.  We  may  well 
compare  the  use  of  nempe^  in  Rud.  565-7  : 

Nempe  meae?    SC.  nempe  nescio  istuc.    LA.  Qua  sunt  facie?   SC.  Scitula: 

Vel  ego  amare  uiramvis  possim  si  probe  adpotus  siem. 

LA.  Nempe  puellae  ?     SC.  Nempe  molestu's :    i,  vise  [intro]  si  lubet. 

Thornton  renders  the  last  hne  very  well,  "And  young  forsooth? 
SC.  Forsooth  you're  plaguey  troublesome."  With  this  passage 
in  mind  I  prefer  to  read  in  Most.  955,"  TH.  Egone  f  AD.  Tune. 
TH.  Tilne  molestu's,  giving  to  ne  in  each  case  a  force  bordering  on 
that  of  ne7npe,  "  I  forsooth  ? — you  forsooth ! — ^Sooth  you  are 
troublesome:"  with  suitable  voice-inflection.  My  reading  is 
nearer  to  tu  tune  of  the  MSS.,  inasmuch  as  I  only  add  a  ne  which 
might  easily  have  dropped  out,  whereas  Fleckeisen  inserts  ne  and 
omits  tu.  Ussing  regards  the  7ie  as  asseverative  and  reads  Egone  ? 
—  Tu. — tu  ne,  etc.,  which  is  inadmissible  \ine  is  enclitic  and  short. 
Moreover,  the  accentuation  tu  ne  does  not  elsewhere  occur.  I  must 
not  omit  to  state  here  that  Scaliger  seems  to  have  identified  the  ne 
in  these  examples  with  the  enclitic  «J  often  affixed  to  relatives. 
At  least  I  have  found  in  the  Codex  Parisinus  11 305,  which  bears  in 
the  catalogue  the  title  "  Notes  de  Scaliger  sur  Plaute,"  the  following 
annotations:  To  Trin.  Ill  2,  S,  "Egone  f  Tune.  Tune '\d  est  tu 
ut  in  Milite  quemne  ego  servavi  in  campis."  To  Amph.  II  2,  65 
"  quaene  id  est  quae  frequentissimum  apud  Plautum  et  apud 
'Catullum  Fratrem  quemne  ipsa  reliqui.'''  And  again  to  Cist.  IV 
2,  6,  "  Quamne  in  manibus  tenui  atque  accepi  hie  ante  aedis," 
quam.ne  id  est  quam.  He  doubtless  took  Priscian  at  his  word 
where  he  says  that  the  7ie  of  quine  is  affirmative. 

'  Compare  also  the  echoed  question  Persa  220,  Itanest?  Itanest?  and  Persius 
Sat.  II,  19,  cuinam?  cuinam?  , 

^  My  reading  is  not  possible  if  one  rigidly  exclude  from  Plautus  dactyls  with 
trochaic  caesura.  Before  consonants  moreover  in  connected  discourse  tun  is  the 
regular  form.  I  should  not  think  of  keeping  tune  molestus  except  as  a  sort  of 
formula.     Metrically  ^(^w^.''     Tune.     Zi/«  w^^j^/*?  would  be  better. 


22 

Of  this  affirmative  ne  we  have  already  pointed  out  four  cases  of 
survival  in  Terence,  one  in  Ennius,  and  nine  in  Plautus,  to  which, 
if  our  view  be  accepted,  six  more  must  now  be  added,  occurring 
in  a  mocking  answer.  Terence  must  have  known  this  use  in  the 
plays  of  Plautus,  and  probably  in  the  folk-speech  of  his  time.  Did 
he  intentionally  avoid  it,  and  substitute  ergo  for  ne  f  We  look  in 
vain  for  a  second  example  oi  ergo  thus  used.  We  know  how  early 
in  the  commentaries  of  Vergil  the  glossing  of  ne  with  ergo  became 
common.  We  do  not  know  whether  Donatus  found  tibi  ergo 
in  his  codex.  Long  before  Priscian  and  the  author  of  what  is 
known  as  the  Calliopian  recension,  the  gloss  ergo  might  have  sup- 
planted ne  in  the  text.  A  glossarist  would  not  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  change  mihine,  which  is  metrically  impossible  if  we  read 
tibi  ergo,  to  mihin.  On  the  other  hand,  had  Terence  himself 
written  ?nihin,  the  scribe  who  in  v.  849  was  very  careful  to  keep 
mihin  ?  even  before  a  vowel,  would  hardly  have  written  mihine. 
Mihin  occurs  in  And.  476,'Phorm.  506,  1048,  with  no  MS.  variation. 
Unfortunately  this  verse  is  not  found  in  the  Bembinus ;  Hertz  tells 
us  at  least  that  only  an  N  can  be  made  out  after  the  beginning  of 
the  verse.  Umpfenbach  does  not  even  record  this.  Perhaps  a 
closer  scrutiny  might  at  least  show  whether  there  was  space  for 
tibi  ergo.  I  feel  quite  confident  that  Terence  wrote  mihine  ?  tibine. 
If  it  shall  be  decided  that  he  wrote  tibi  ergo,  I  shall  make  him 
responsible  for  the  ne :  ergo  glosses,  and  shall  thus  through  Priscian 
indirectly  prove  the  affirmative  nature  of  the  enclitic  particle  ne. 

If  any  one  has  had  the  patience  to  follow  me  thus  far,  he  will 
naturally  be  inclined  to  ask  for  a  more  explicit  statement  of  my 
views  in  regard  to  the  interrogative  particle  ne,  and  its  relations  to 
the  affirmative  particle,  which  has  up  to  this  point  formed  the 
subject  of  discussion.  To  avoid  all  misunderstanding,  I  wish  to 
state  distinctly  at  the  outset  my  belief  in  the  existence  of  an  inter- 
rogative particle  ne  of  negative  origin,  the  limits  of  whose  use, 
however,  must  I  think  be  drawn  more  closely  than  they  have  been 
hitherto.  When  I  find  that  Haut.  v.  563  vidin  ego  te  f  is  cited  by 
Julius  Rufinianus  as  non  ego  te  vidif ;  when  I  find  in  Cod.  Par. 
7900  A,  edixin  And.  495  and  dixin  Adelph.  83  glossed  by  nonne 
edixi  and  nonne  dixi,  and  when  I  find  Remigius  in  his  commentary 
on  Martianus  Capella  (Cod.  Par.  8674)  explaining  coepistine  (cf. 
Eyssenhardt,  p.  300)  by  nonne  coepisti,  I  do  not  say  that  the 
authors  of  these  glosses  have  confused  the  facts,'  but  I  infer  that  to 

'  Hand  Turs.  IV,  p.  77,  says  of  Priscian  omnia  miscuit. 

/ 


23 

them  the  negative  force  of  ne  is  as  clear  and  sharp  as  the  negation 
in  carCt,  won't,  etc.,  is  clear  to  an  English  speaker. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  Priscian  tells  me  that  ne  is  sometimes 
affirmative,  citing  in  illustration  passages  most  apposite,  as  I  have 
tried  to  show  ;  when  numerous  glosses  representing  ancient  tradi- 
tion interpret  ne  to  mean  vero,  ergo,  enim  and  etiain ;  when  every 
one  admits  that  sin  is  equivalent  to  si  vero ;  I  cannot  shut  my  eyes 
to  all  this  testimony  and  declare  that  ne  is  purely  and  simply  nega- 
tive, and  that  hence  all  the  phenomena  in  its  use  must  be  made  to 
square  with  the  negative  conception.  Nor  can  I  intrench  myself 
as  Hand '  does  behind  the  pr(5found  philosophical  observation 
that  every  question  implies  doubt,  and  that  all  doubt  borders  upon 
negation,  and  that  hence  every  question  contains  a  negative  ele- 
ment, which  very  naturally  finds  its  expression  in  ne.  Practically 
speaking  every  question  does  not  imply  doubt,  and  does  not  so  far 
as  expression  is  concerned  call  for  a  negative  element.  If  we  look 
at  the  hard  facts  of  language  we  shall  find  Plautus  in  563  questions 
and  Terence  in  346  employing  no  interrogative  particle  or  pronoun 
whatever,  and  that,  too,  in  questions  exactly  parallel  to  those  in 
which  Hand  assigns  to  ne  a  negative  force.  We  shall  find,  more- 
over, vero  occasionally  taking  the  place  of  ne,  and  here  and  there 
enim  and  nempe  in  questions  for  which  editors  in  some  cases  have 
actually  substituted  ne.  The  Greeks  use  y, ;  we  ourselves  employ 
really  and  truly  in  interrogation.  But  vero,  enim,  nempe,  y,,  and 
really,  are  by  nature  affirmative.  No  a  priori  reasoning,  therefore, 
can  bar  out.  the  possibility  of  an  affirmative  ne.  For  myself  I  see 
no  reason  for  dissociating  the  forms  egone,.  tune,  hicine,  etc. 
found  in  direct  statements,  where  any  negative  notion  is  of  necessity 
excluded,  from  the  same  forms  found  in  questions.  In  commenting 
on  Eun.  V  4,  41,  Donatus  says,  ''Obsecro  an  is  est?  insultantis  ut 
in  Phormione  (945).  Ah  /  tune  is  eras  ?  nam  sciebat  eum  esse.' 
Hand  would  of  course  translate.  Ah,  you  were  not  he  ?  but  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  why  there  must  of  necessity  be  a  negative  force 
in  tune  is  which  does  not  reside  in  ayi  is  ?  Shakespeare  in  As 
You  Like  It,  III  2,  410,  makes  Rosalind  say,  "  But  in  good  sooth 
are  you  he  that  hangs  the  verses  on  the  trees  ?  "  after  Orlando 
has  confessed  the  act.     Cf.  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  V  3,  47  : 

PAR.     O  my  good  lord,  you  were  the  first  that  found  me ! 
LAF.     Was  I  in  sooth?  and  I  was  the  first  that  lost  thee. 

This  affirmative  sense,  in  sooth,  with  the  various  shades  of  mean- 

'Tursellinus  IV,  p.  71. 


24 

ing  which  it  may  be  made  to  take  on  by  different  modulations  of 
the  voice,  is,  t  claim,  far  more  natural  for  ne  where  irony,  surprise, 
indignation  and  kindred  emotions  are  to  be  expressed,  than  the 
simply  negative  force.  I  need  only  mention  here  the  ironical  use 
ofvero  (cf  Donatus  to  Eun.  V  2,  69,  "vera,  slpio'^ixw^  ut  egregiam 
vero  lauderny^  A  very  good  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  And.  917, 
Est  vero  huic  credendum,  Chreme,  which  the  early  editors  punctuate  ' 
as  a  question.     I  conceive  ne  to  have  a  force  very  like  this  in  Trin. 

960  f : 

Quem  ego  qui  sit  homo  nescio 
Neque  oculis  ante  hunc  diem  untquam  vi'di,  eine  aurum  crederem  ? 
BCD  ei  nemirutn. 

In  treating  the  several  cases  of  survival  of  the  formula  egone  ? 
tune.  I  have  tried  to  prove  that  the  ne  of  the  answer  is  an  echo  of 
the  ne  in  the  question,  and  that  the  two  stand  in  very  much  the 
same  relation  to  each  other  as  the  two  nempe's  (to  take  another 
example)  in  Aul.  290  : 

CO.     Nempe  hue  dimidium  di'cis,  dimidium  domum? 
ST.     Nempe  sicut  dicis. 

The  whole  tone  here  is  of  course  quite  different  from  that  of  the 
egone  ?  questions. 

In  Adelph.  770  I  have  pointed  out  an  instance  of  the  survival  of 
tun  before  a  condition,  tun  si  metis  esses,  with  the  force  of  tu  vero. 
But  this  does  not  differ  in  any  essential  respect  from  the  tun  found 
in  Phorm.  932,  tu7i  hanc  duceres,  si  tibi  daretur?  nor  from  a 
hundred  other  tun\  which  I  might  cite.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of 
voice-inflection,  and  the  ne  in  the  earliest  period  of  its  use  was 
something  more  than  a  mere  sign.  Of  course  I  do  not  claim  that, 
when  with  the  constant  friction  to  which  the  commoner  coins  of 
language  are  exposed,  the  particle  had  become  reduced  to  a  single 
letter,  its  force  was  vividly  felt  by  the  people  who  used  it,  any  more 
than  I  would  claim  that  ordinary  English  speakers  attach  any 
force  to  the  ^  of  as  or  such  or  recognize  its  connection  with  the  so 
of  also.  No  Roman  had  any  feeling  for  the  c  in  sic  or  hoc  as  a 
separate  element  in  a  compound  word.  In  this  respect  the  affirma- 
tive particle  ne  was  at  a  great  disadvantage  compared  with  the 
negative.  Every  Englishman  has  at  least  a  vague  sense  of  the 
separate  force  of  n  in  nought  and  none,  and  the  nt  in  s ha' n't,  and 
every  Roman  would  feel  clearly  the  difference  between  dixin  and 
dixi.  An  affirmative  particle  would  be  much  more  likely  to  fade 
out  into  a  mere  sign.  Yet  that  the  abridged  forms  ten,  men,  tun 
were  used  for  emphasis  long  after  the  n  had  ceased  to  have  for  the 


25 

speaker  any  independent  value,  cannot  be  doubted.     In  this  light 

I  think  we  must  interpret  such  scholia  as  the  followifig :  Donatus 
to  And.  II  3,  ID,  Egon  dicam  9  To  ego  emphasim  habet ;  And. 
Ill  2,  12,  Ran  contemnor :  hoc  est  adeone  contemnor,  valde  con- 
temnor ;  And.  I  5,  28,  Eine  ego  ut  adverser  f  Pronomen  hoc  vim 
qualitatis  habet;  et  est  cur  tali,  tarn  bono  (cf.  Hec.  I   i,  13);  And. 

II  6,  4,  Nihilne  est  s.u(friiu<Tiid^  antiquorum  pro  nihil  (cf.  7iihil 
enim,  Kec.  850).  In  like  manner  Servius  to  Verg.  Aen.  II,  657, 
Mene  efferre,  etc.,  nam  pronomina  habent  vim  suam  nonnum- 
quam  et  emphasim.  Both  commentators  must  have  had,  I  think, 
a  dim  sense  of  the  latent  force  of  ne,  although  they  could  give  it  no 
adequate  expression  in  words.  Servius  is  quite  as  much  at  a  loss 
to  explain  enim  in  Verg.  Aen.  VIII  84  : 

Quam  pius  Aeneas  tibi  enim,  tibi,  maxima  Juno, 

"  vacat  enim  et  tantum  ad  ornatum  pertinet,"  and  yet  we  know 
that  Vergil  has  ventured  to  refresh  here  in  ejiim  that  strong  assev- 
erative  force  in  which  alone  it  is  known  to  Plautus.  Nothing  can 
illustrate  better  the  danger  of  looking  at  early  Latin  through 
Ciceronian  spectacles  than  this  very  word  enim.  Only  fifteen  years 
ago  William  Ramsay,  in  his  edition  of  the  Mostellaria,  p.  206,  could 
say:  "We  maintain  that  in  the  early  writers  enim  vero  sxgm^ts 
'  for  in  truth,'  as  enim  always  signifies  '  for.'  "  Our  much  despised 
Priscian  might  have  taught  him  better  (Keil  II,  p.  103  and  104), 
"  Invenitur  etiam  pro  affirmativa,  ut  Terentius  in  Andria  (I  3,  i), 
Enim  vero  Dave  nihil  loci  est,  etc.,  et  maxime  praepositiva  hanc 
habet  significationem,et  idem  in  Adelph.  (II  i,  14)  enim  non sinam" 
It  was  reserved  however  for  Langen  in  1880  (Beitr.  p.  261-271) 
to  show  that  enim  does  not  occur  before  Terence  in  any  other 
than  asseverative  force,  and  that  only  rarely  in  Terence  does  it  mean 
for.  I  think  we  shall  not  err  if  in  some  passages  of  Plautus  and 
Terence  we  reinforce  the  original  asseverative  or  affirmative 
meaning  of  ne.  Certainly  tmie  in  answer  was  stronger  than  tu, 
and  German  editors  are  fond  of  translating  it  '  du  ja.'  So  too  ne 
in  a  question  frequently  Corresponds  to  enim  or  vero  in  the  answer. 
I  might  multiply  instances,  but  the  following  will  suffice  :  Adelph. 
924,  Tun  iubes  hoc  f  —  Ego  vero  iubeo.  Pseud.  979,  Tune's 
Ballio  ? — Ego  enim.  vero  is  sum  (cf  Epid.  541,  Hicinesf).  Persa 
185,  ain  vero  ? — aio  enim.  vero  (cf  Amph.  344).  Amph.  758, 
Tun  dicis  f —  Tun  negas  ? — nego  enim  vero.  Compare  itane  vero  f 
in  Rud.  971  with  ita  enim  verof  Rud.  1003,  quiane  in  Most.  11 32. 

Verbero  etiam  inrides?     TR.  Quian  me  pro  te  ire  ad  cenam  autumo  ? 


26 

and  Persa  850  with  quia  enim  in  Merc.  648,  Mil.  1140,  Pers.  228, 
and  especially  True.  II  2,   11, 

Quid  tibi  ego  maledico?     STR.  Quia  enim  me  triincum  lentum  nominas, 

enim  me  A  BCD  ;  me,  Spengel,  on  account  of  metre.  Fleckeisen, 
Jahrb.  loi,  p.  702,  omits  ego  and  retains  quia  enim.  Had  Plautus 
used  quian  m.e  in  direct  statement,  I  think  his  contemporaries 
would  have  understood  him,  as  Horace's  friends  doubtless  under- 
stood quine  putetis,  and  nemon  ut  (Sat.  I  i,  108;  Keller  and 
Holder,  nemo  ut  with  hiatus).  I  should  not  venture  however  to 
put  quian  m.e  in  the  text. 

One  of  the  most  common  uses  of  ne  in  Plautus  is  in  connection 
with  the  exclamatory  infinitive  :  so  Asin.  226  Hae'cine  te  esse  oblitum, 
,  in  ludo  qui  fuisti  tarn,  diu  !  With  this  may  be  compared  Cic.  de 
Fin.  II  10,  29,  Hoc  veronon  videre  !  which  Madvig  thus  explains, 
Hoc  vero  credibile  est  eum  non  videre  ?  (see  And.  625,  hocinest 
credibile?  and  compare  Lucret.  II 16  nonne  videre?  with  Lachmann's 
note).  Cic.  ad  Att.  VII  2,  8,  Chrysippum  vero,  quem  ego  .  .  in  honore 
habui,  discedere  a  puero  !  It  is  evident  that  vero  in  the  Ciceronian 
passages  performs  the  same  office  as  ne  in  Plautus,  and  \}a3X.nonne^ 
in  the  Lucretian  passage  is  equivalent  to  non  vero  and  is  not  a 
compound  of  two  negatives  like  nonnumquam,  in  which  case  we 
should  expect  the  negative  force  to  be  lost.  In  view  of  such  pas- 
sages I  do  not  see  how  one  can  dismiss  lightly  the  ne  •  vero  glosses 
or  attribute  them  to  some  ignorant  glossarist.  The  late  Prof. 
Fritsche  may  very  possibly  have  held  to  the  negative  origin  of  ne, 
but  if  so,  he  translated  Hor.  Sat.  II  4,  83  ten-radere,  etc.,  better  than 
he  knew,  "musst  du  denn  wirklich  ?  " 

I  now  pass  to  the  most  difficult  part  of  my  task.  It  is  a  dis- 
advantage to  be  a  foundling,  and  many  particles  live  under  a  sort 
of  social  ban  because  they  cannot  point  to  a  family  tree.  What  a 
stigma  attaches  to  /taud  because  it  cannot  prove  its  paternity ! 
How  much  more  ready  we  are  to  admit  non  into  the  society  of  our 
pet  adjectives  !  Clearly  relations  and  a  respectable  ancestry  must 
be  found  for  ne,  else  it  will  still  rest  under  the  baneful  suspicion  of 
being  nothing  more  than  a  bastard  negative,  whose  true  origin 
has  for  family  reasons  been  concealed.  The  most  expeditious  way 
to  dispose  of  it  would  no  doubt  be  to  father  it  upon  the  asseverative 
ne.  This  Schoemann  (Lehre  von  d.  Redetheilen,  p.  221)  has 
done,  calling  it  "die  abgeschwachte  Form  "    The  temptation  to  do 

'  Spengel  is,  I  think,  mistaken  in  denying  nonne  to  Plautus  and  Terence.  It 
was  used  like  anne  and  namque  before  vowels,  and  if  we  can  trust  the  MSS.  it 
was  not  confined  to  questions  ;  see  Merc.  62,  nonne  ut  Phorm.  969,  nonne  hercle. 


27 

this  is  strong,  and  in  declaring  against  it  I  have  not  overlooked 
the  striking  affinity  between  passages  like  Haut.  918  and  Haut. 
950.  This  resemblahce  is  due  to  the  fact  that  both  ne  and  ne 
are  to  be  referred  to  a  common  pronominal  stem  which  for  con- 
venience sake  we  may  with  Fick  call  na  (cf.  Worterbuch  d.  Indo- 
Germ.  Sprach.  I,  p.  122).  To  this  he  assigns  the  office  of  strength- 
ening other  pronouns  (Skr.-na  in  e-na,  Zend  na  enclitische  Partikel 
in  ke'm  nt  (c/uem-nam),  -na  in  ci-na  wer,  dacna  f.  das  selbst  (?)  ■\- 
•yrj,  vat'traun,  versichernd,  -•>//  in  tyw-.'rj ,  zwr^ ;  -va  in  (hi-^a  derselbige, 
->-  in  Ti->-(i(;,  zi-v-i,  Ti-^d,  lat.  ne,  nae,  traun,  versichernd,  7ia-m  in 
quisnam,  wer  doch,  n  in  nu-n-c  u.  s.  w.,  Goth,  -n  in  hun,  ains-hun.') 
The  Latin  language  seems  to  have  gone  its  own  way  in  the  devel- 
opment of  this  stem,  and  to  have  been  more  prolific  than  any  of 
the  cognate  tongues.  I  owe  to  M.  Breal  the  following  clear  state- 
ment regarding  it  (see  Memoires  de  la  Societe  de  Linguistique  de 
Paris,  I,  p.  195,) :  ''na  avait  a  I'origine  un  sens  demonstratif.  II  a 
donne  I'adverbe  interrogatif  num  et  avec  le  c  enclitique  nmic  ace. 
m.;  la  conjonction  nam  ace.  f.,  la  particule  interrogative  nc  dont  la 
flexion  casuelle  a  tout-a-fait  disparu,  ou  qui  peut-etre  n'en  a  jamais 
eu.  La  forme  secondaire  ni  a  donne  I'accusatif  nem  dans  nempe. 
De  plus  notre  pronom  s'est  conserve  comme  enclitique  sous  les 
formes  nam  et  num.  dans  quisnam  et  etianmumy  Etymologists 
generally  have  derived  nempe  from  nani-pe  without  taking  the 
trouble  to  explain  on  what  phonetic  principle  nam  -\-  pe  gives 
nempe  while  nam  ■\-  que  gives  namque.  Breal,  as  we  see,  assigns 
to  nem  a  distinct  origin.  What  if  nem  itself  be  the  fuller  form  of 
the  enclitic  ne  "which  Breal  admits  may  have  lost  a  case  ending? 
The  Latin  language  would  then  have  started  with  three  particles 
of  similar  formation,  nam,  netn,  and  num,  all  of  which  were  used 
in  interrogations,  though  not  confined  to  them;  while  nem.  from 
the  greater  frequency  of  its  enclitic  use  had  lost  its  final  7n  before 
the  literary  period.  The  independent  existence  of  7iem  is  tacitly 
admitted  by  Corssen,  Ausspr.  II,  p.  640,  when  he  says :  "  Ehe 
die  enklitische  Partikel  -pe  an  ne^n-  antrat,  war  das  m  auslautend, 
also  schwach  nachklingend  ;  diesen  schwachen  verschwindend 
kurzen  Laut  behielt  es  auch  vor  der  Anfiigung  -pe,  wie  das  m  von 
enim  in  der  Tonverbindung  von  enim  vero.  So  ward  nempe  mit 
verschwindend  mattem  und  kurzem  labialen  Nasallaut  gesprochen 
fast  wie  *nepe  und  so  bei  den  Biihnendichtern  gemessen  "  Nepe  is 
found,  too,  in  the  MSS.  in  Trin.  328  in  BCD,  where  Ritschl  remarks 
m.emorabili  indicio  pyrrhichiacae  mensurae,  and  in  Trin.  966  in  D. 
The  vanishing  of  the  nasal  sound  is  perhaps  still  more  clearly 


28 

proved  by  a  gloss  which  I  have  found  in  the  Cod.  Bern.  224,  saec. 
X,  p.  217,  neppe :  eerie.  Neppe  is  found  according  to  Ribbeck  in 
Verg.  Georg.  Ill  259  in  c  =  Cod,  Bern.  184,  saec.  IX,  to  which 
our  gloss  may  refer. 

The  independent  existence  of  nem  receives  further  support  from 
a  gloss  of  Festus  (M tiller,  p.  162),  iV^-mut,  nisi  etiam  vel  nempe 
usus  est  Cato  de pot.  /^'-ibunicif,  cum  ait :  "  nemut  .  .  .  aerumnas." 
The  letters  italicized  are  due  to  conjecture.  Paulus  (Muller,  p.  163) 
gives  simply  'nemut  nisi  etiam,  vel  nempe.'  Meyer  and  Duebner, 
Oratorum  Romanorum  Fragmenta,  p.  168,  assign  the  mutilated 
fragment  to  Cato's  oration  '  de  Tribunis  Militum,'  which  was  prob- 
ably delivered  in  the  year  171  B.  C.  (see  Jordan's  ed.  of  the 
Fragments,  Proleg.  p.  Ixxxiv).  We  cannot  be  absolutely  certain 
however  that  Verrius  Flaccus  did  find  the  words  in  Cato.  Now, 
as  the  loose  compounds  sicut,  velut,  praeut  and  prout  presuppose 
the  existence  of  sic,  vel,  prae  and  pro,  so  a  compound  nemut  pre- 
supposes the  .existence  of  7iem,  and  it  is  clearly  quite  improbable 
that  nam  -f-  ut  should  ever  give  nemut.  I  need  not  rehearse  here 
the  familiar  facts  in  regard  to  the  dropping  of  m,  final  in  the  Roman 
folk-speech  from  the  earliest  times.  If  now  we  posit  a  form 
tunem,  for  an  early  period  we  might  expect  to  see  it  reduced  to 
tune  and  finally  to  tun,  just  as  noenum  becomes  noenu  and  finally 
nan.  And  as  non  is  the  regular  form  even  in  Plautus,  occurring 
hundreds  of  times,  while  noenum.  has  good  MS.  authority  in  only 
one  passage  Aul.  67  (I  i,  28,  see  Ussing's  note  and  Langen  Beit.  p. 
263)  although  used  as  an  archaism  by  Lucilius  and  Lucretius,  so 
under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  we  could  not  expect  more 
than  two  or  three  cases  of  the  fuller  form  nem  in  the  MSS.  of  Plautus. 
If  I  were  asked  to  give  examples  where  nem  ut  might  have  been  used 
in  a  pre-Plautine  period,  I  should  give  the  following : 

Egone(m)  ut  te  adversum  mentiar,  mater  mea  (Aul.  682). 
Egone(m)  lit  cavere  nequeam,  quoi  praedicitur  (Pseud.  516). 
Hicgne(m)  lit  a  nobis  iioc  tantum  argenti  aiiferat  (Piiorm.  955). 
Niinc  agitas  sat  tiite   tuarun\  rerum ;   egone(m)  ut  opem  te  mih  i 
Ferre  putem  posse  inopem  ?     (Bacch.  637). 

Ritschl  omits  ne  and  does  not  consider  it  a  question.  Dombart 
in  Bliitt.  f.  bayer.  Gymnas.  u.  Realschulwesen,  1880,  p.  40,  claims 
that  nam  was  originally  asseverative  by  nature :  "  nam,  enim 
und  vero  sind  ursprtinglich  versichernd  und  bedeuten  '  in  der 
That.'  Daraus  entwickelte  sich  fruher  bei  nam  spater  bei  enim 
eine  begriindende  und  erlauternde  Bedeutung."  As  the  comic 
poets  use  nam  quis  for  the  classical  quisnam,  so  nem,  as  is  proven 


29 

by  nempe,  was  not  always  enclitic.  In  an  early  period  we  might 
conceive  of  it  taking  the  place  of  nam  in  the  fpUowing  sentence, 
Cist.  IV  I,  ID.     I  give  the  reading  of  Pareus : 

Nam  hercle  ego  illam  anum  inridere  me  ut  sinam?  satiu'st  mihi 
Quovis  exitio  interire. 

Terence  could  only  use  nem  as  an  enclitic  and  for  him  the  m  was 
irrecoverably  lost.  Compare  for  instance  with  the  above  passage, 
Eun.  771 : 

Hancine  ego  ut  contumeliam  tam  insignem  in  me  accipiam  Gnatho  ? 
Mori  me  satius  est. 

Primarily  the  difference  in  meaning  between  nam  and  nem  in 
such  questions  could  not  have  been  very  great.  Nam  and  enim 
often  border  very  closely  on  one  another,  and  again  diverge  widely 
in  their  use.  Quia  enim,  so  frequently  found  in  Plautus  and 
Terence,  is  quite  different  from  the  archaic  quianam,  but  quite  like 
quiane  (for  quianem),  as  I  have  tried  to  show  above.  So  we  need 
not  be  surprised  to  find  uti7i  differing  both  from  utinam  and  from 
ut  enim,  in  Epid.  277.  EP  Ut  enim  praestines  argento,  pn'usquam 
veniatfiliuSy  cf.  Cas.  165,  Poen.  845.  Utine  in  fact  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  an  inverted  nemut,  to  which  it  stands  in  the 
same  relation  that  curnam  stands  to  the  Plautine  nam,  cur.  I 
cite  here  all  the  passages  of  its  occurrence  in  Plautus  and  Terence. 
Epid.  II  2,  41  (225): 

Utin  inpluvium  indiita  fuerit  ?     AP.  Quid  istuc  tam  mirabilest  ? 
Merc.  Ill  3,  15  (576): 

Senex  hirquosus,  tu  aiisculere  mulierem  ? 
Utine  adveniens  vomitum  excutias  miilieri  ? 

Rud.  IV  4,  19(1063): 

DAE.  Gripe  'animum  advorte  ac  tace. 
GR.  Utin  istic  prius  dicat?     DAE.  Audi  loquere  tu.     GR.  Alienon  prius. 

Phorm.  V  6,  34  (874): 

Somnium :  utin  haec  ignoraret  suom  patrem  ?  GE.  Aliquid  credito. 

Hec.  II  I,  2  (199)  : 

Pro  deum  atque  hominum  fidem,  quod  hoc  genus  est,  quae  haec  est  conjuratio! 
Utin  omnes  mulieres  eadem  aeque  stiideant  nolintque  omnia. 

But  I  must  defer  till  another  time  any  special  discussion  of  the 
interrogative   use   of   the   affirmative   ne.     The   cases   where    ne 


30 

strengthens  a  relative,  of  which  there  are  some  twenty-five  in 
Plautus  and  Terence,  are  perhaps  the  most  interesting,  inasmuch 
as  here  the  close  relation  between  ne  and  nempe  is  most  clearly 
seen.  Here  too  as  in  the  case  of  nempe  we  shall  often  have  diffi- 
culty in  deciding  whether  there  is  any  real  question  involved.  I 
find  for  instance  that  Bothe  anticipates  my  view  in  not  regarding 
Cist.  IV  2,  6  as  a  question.  I  cite  from  his  edition,  without  making 
myself  responsible  for  his  metre  : 

Quamne  in  manibus  tenui  atque  accepi  hie  ante  aedis  cistellam,  ubi  ea  est, 
Nescio  ;  nisi  ut  opinor,  loca  haec  circiter  excidit  mihi. 

Tyrrell  in  his  excellent  edition  of  the  Miles,  at  verse  62  points  out 
that  this  usage  is  very  similar  to  the  Hibernicism  sure,  "  sure  they 
both  asked  me."  He  reads  quae  me  ambae  obsecraverint,  without 
a  question,  where  Bentley  and  Scioppius  read  quaene  ...  .^  At  973  he 
reads  quae  cupiat,  where  Ritschl  and  Brix  quaen  cupiat  ?  In  both 
cases  I  should  keep  7ie  without  a  question.  Ussing  in  Epid.  444 
(449  Gz.)  keeps  nem,pe  quein  in  adulesce'ntia.  Goetz,  as  we  have 
seen,  unwilling  to  admit  nempe^  under  the  ictus,  reads  with  Acidalius 
quem,ne.  If  we  accept  this  reading,  the  change  to  nempe  quern 
must  be  referred  to  an  early  revision,  whose  author  recognized  the 
connection  between  nempe  and  ne{in).  Doubtless  a  Roman  soldier 
in  the  first  Samnite  war  might  have  said  nem  quem,  just  as  our 
Plautine  hero  in  v.  462  says  nam  quid parcam  ? 

I  have  before  alluded  to  certain  points  of  contact  between  the 
Plautine  use  of  enim.  and  of  7ic.  I  look  upon  enim  not  as  a  com- 
pound of  nam,  but  of  nem,  or  rather  nini,  to  which  it  stands  in  the 
same  relation  as  equidem-  to  quidem.  I  say  of  nim,  for  I  think  it 
probable  that,  as  we  have  of  is  both  the  accusatives  em  and  im,  so 
nim  may  have  existed  side  by  side  with  nem,  although  in  less  com- 
mon use.  A  closer  scrutiny  of  the  MSS.  may  reveal  a  very  few  cases 
of  ne  =  nem,  but  I  hardly  expect  it.  Even  if  some  slight  vanish- 
ing nasal  sound  were  heard  in  the  time  of  Plautus,  it  would  probably 
not  have  been  represented  by  any  written  sign,  and  later  scribes 
certainly  would  not  Introduce  a  sound  which  had  died  away  in  the 
language.  I  attach  no  importance,  therefore,  to  a  corruption  like 
ei  nemiruTn  for  eine  aurum  in  Trin,  960  BCD,  as  aurum  often 
becomes  mirum  in  MSS."   Should  nem  be  found  in  A,  that  would 

'  The  metrical  question  is  still  an  open  one,  cf.  Pseud.  353,  1189  Rud.  565, 
Bacch.  188,  and  Muller  Plaut.  Pros.  p.  433  ff. 

^  Cure.  10,  Egone  apieularum  is  cited  by  Priscian  as  ego  nam,  etc. 


be  a  different  matter.  I  hope  no  one  will  call  me  rash  or  incon- 
sistent if  following  the  MSS.  quite  closely  I  propose  nim  as  a 
possible  reading  in  two  passages  which  have  sorely  vexed  the 
editors.  The  first  is  Trin,  922,  where  B  has  ancharesancharmides 
0  mim  charmides.  C  and  D  have  Anchares  ancharmides  min 
charmides.  See  Ritschl's  critical  note  and  Brix.  3d  ed.  for  the  various 
emendations  which  have  been  proposed ;  vtim  has  been  changed 
to  numne,  numnam,  anne,  ain,  num  and  enim.  My  own  view  receives 
its  best  illustration  from  Terence,  Phormio  307.  Demipho  exclaims 
in  anger : 

hominem  conmonstrarier 
Mihi  istum  volo  aut  ubi  habitet  demonstrarier, 

to  which  Geta,  as  if  pretending  not  to  know  certainly,  replies,  Nejnpe 
Phormionem  ?  Langen,  in  his  very  valuable  article  on  nempe,  Beitr. 
p.  125  ff,  translates  '  Du  meinst  wohl  den  Phormio  ? '  and  remarks  : 
"  Der  Hinweis  auf  Phormio  ist  nicht  so  sicher  das  Plautus  hier  nempe 
gebraucht  haben  wiirde."  Now  it  seems  to  me  unquestionable  that 
an  earlier  generation  might  have  used  nem  or  nim  Phormionem 
where  Terence  uses  netnpe,  and  with  strong  affirmative  force.  It  is 
perhaps  a  solitary  survival  of  this  use  which  we  have  here.  Ribbeck 
in  Rhein.  Mus.  XXVII,  p.  179,  proposes : 

SYC  ad  hoc  exemplumst :  Char.  CH  Chares  ?  an  Charmides ?  SYC  enim  Charmides: 
Em  istic  erat. 

I  should  read  nim  for  enim,  attaching  to  it  the  same  sense. 
Paleographically  nim  =  min  of  CD.  Moreover  I  agree  with 
Brix  3d  ed.  that  the  future  erit  must  be  kept.'  The  other  passage 
is  Merc.  767, 

CO.  Ni(m)  metuis  tu  istanc.     LYS.  Sapio:  nam  mihi  unicast. 
Ni  metuis  libri,  Num  metuis  Camerarius 

Ne  metuis  h.  e.  metuisne  Meursius.  Ritschl  reads  nempe  metuis. 
It  may  be  a  mere  accident  that  nempe  is  not  found  in  Plautus 
associated  with  the  verb  metuo.  Enim  is  thus  found,  Pers.  319  :  Enim 
m,etuo  ut  possim.  reicere  in  bubile,  ne  vagMur,  cf  Cas.  281,  Mil. 
429.  Some  may  therefore  prefer  to  substitute  enim  as  Ritschl  has 
nempe  for  ni,  but  I  think  we  shall  do  better  to  keep  the  simple 

'  Or  following  the  MSS.  still  more  closely  we  may  read  ;  SYC.  ad  hoc  exem- 
plumst an  Chares  an  Charmides  CH  nim  Charmides  ?  SYC  Em  istic  erit.  For 
an — an  cf.  Epid.  223,  cf.  Langen  Beit.  p.  266. 


32 

particle,  from  which,  according  to  my  view,  the  others  are  derived. 
It  may  have  been  even  in  Plautus'  time  an  archaism  in  this  usage, 
as  noenu  was  for  Lucretius.  The  bantering  tone  is  very  evident : 
'  Sooth  you're  afraid  of  her.' 

I  am  moreover  emboldened  to  keep  nim  by  the  following  gloss 
found  in  Cod.  Bern.  A  92,  i,  saec  IX,  p.  14,  nim:  ni,  nisi,  si 
non,  of  which  no  doubt  the  earliest  form  was  nim:  ni,  nisi  and  si 
non  having  been  added  later  to  explain  tii.  It  is  easy  to  dismiss 
such  a  gloss  with  a  shrug  of  the  shoulders  as  the  absurd  attempt 
of  some  ignorant  scholiast  to  explain  away  a  corruption  in  the 
MSS.  But  it  is  unfair  to  pronounce  sentence  upon  a  gloss  of 
which  we  do  not  know  the  context.  No  doubt  many  of  the 
'  happy  emendations '  of  modern  times,  did  we  but  know  it,  are 
only  ingenious  attempts  to  explain  what  for  the  ancients  needed  no 
explanation.  So  hie  nunc  has  been  substituted  for  hicine,  and 
egomet  for  egone.     Spengel  in  True.  II  6,  52  f  reads : 

Is  te  dono.     PHR.     Poenitetne  te,  quot  ancillas  alam 

Qui  etiam  alienas  siiperadducas,  quae  mihi  comedint  cibum? 

Quin  etid  men  super  adducas  BCD. 

Haupt  (Hermes  III,  p.  229)  proposes  to  read  Quine  examen  super 
adducas.  Dombart  (Philol.  XXVIII,  p.  735)  Quin  etiam  mi  in- 
super  adducas,  which  reading  I  accept  as  being  nearest  to  the  MSS. 
But  I  differ  from  Dombart  inasmuch  as  I  regard  quin,  with  Haupt, 
as  equal  to  quine,  i.  e.  quine(m).  It  is  very  like  Horace's  '  quine 
putetis.'  Now  Kiessling,  whose  eminence  as  a  Plautine  critic  no 
one  will  deny,  comparing  Eun.  1013  and  Rud.  579,  proposes 
(Jahrb.  97,  p.  634)  ni  eiiatn  examen  superadducas,  and  we  must 
admit  with  Fleckeisen  that  the  emendation  is  '  very  tempting.' 
But  if  my  view  of  the  passage  is  correct,  it  is  quite  the  same  as 
glossing  ne{m)  or  ni(m)  with  nisi.  So,  too,  in  Bacch.  637  (already 
cited)  we  might  substitute  nisi  etiam  for  egone{ni)  ut,  and  still  fairly 
represent  the  sense  of  the  passage.  I  cannot  believe  that  Verrius 
Flaccus  was  guilty  of  a  worse  blunder  than  this  would  be  in  his 
gloss,  nem  ut :  nisi  etiam  velnempe. 

MiNTON  Warren. 


.■«Mi?f!v|'.>'.-n 


The  foregoing  Dissertation  was  originally  presented  in 
Latin  to  the  Philosophical  Faculty  of  the  Strassburg  University 
and  by  them  accepted  in  1879.  Owing  to  the  writer's  sudden 
recall  to  America,  its  publication  was  unavoidably  deferred. 
In  its  present  English  form  (due  to  practical  reasons  connected 
with  its  insertion  in  the  American  Journal  of  Philology)  it  has 
received  some  modifications.  These  reprints  have  the  sanction 
of  the  Philosophical  Faculty  of  the  Strassburg  University. 


CORRIGENDA  ET  ADDENDA. 


p.     3,    1.   10  ff.  from  bottom,  put  ...  for  period  before  MI.  in  each  verse. 
7,  11.  2,  4-  9  „  „         read  inventus. 

7,    1.  8  „  „  read  repertus. 

9.    1.  20  „  „         read  KIC(INEE)S(T). 

19,  1,   13  „  „  read  Mihine? 

20,  1.   17         ■  y,  r,         on    special    examination    I    find    that    J    has 

tune}  (sic.) 
22,  1.  20   from  top,    omit   sentence    beginning :    Perhaps,    According    to 
Studemund  only  V  i.e.  the  first  three  strokes  of  the  M  oi  Mihine} 
can  be  read  in  the  Bembinus. 

28,  11.   10,   11,   12   from   bottom   put   interrogation-point   at   end   of  each 

verse. 

29,  1.  8   from  bottom  dele  period  after  prius. 

29,  1.  3    from   bottom   add   Hec.   I,    l,    9    (66).    Utin    eximium    nemirum 
habeam  ?  SY.  Neminem  : 


■,i<^'X .   "•*'  '■ 


■"<•. 


ti 


f 


^''f'*^. 


:;>ii£iS2^j^ 


